State v. Carter, 485.

• Decision Date: 24 January 1934
• Docket Number: No. 485.,485.
• Citation: 205 N.C. 761,172 S.E. 415
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. CARTER.

172 S.E. 415

205 N.C. 761

STATE.

v.CARTER.

No. 485.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 24, 1934.

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Sink, Judge.

W. C. T. Carter was convicted of a violation of a traffic ordinance, and he appeals. No error.

The defendant was tried and convicted, first in the municipal court of the city of High Point, and, second, on his appeal from the judgment of the municipal court, in the superior court of Guilford county, of a violation of an ordinance of the city of High Point.

From the judgment of the superior court, that he pay a fine of $50, and the costs of the action, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

C. A. York, of High Point, for appellant

Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. P. Seawell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CONNOR, Justice.

Some time prior to June 27, 1933, the city council of the city of High Point adopted and passed an ordinance providing that "it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to park any automobile, truck or other motor driven vehicle on the north side of English Street between College Street and Phillips Street" in said city. This ordinance was in full force and effect, according to its terms, on June 27, 1933.

The evidence for the state at the trial in the superior court showed that between the hours of 1 and 2 o'clock p. m., on June 27, 1933, the defendant's automobile was standing on English street in front of defendant's store, which is located on the north side of English street, between College street and Phillips street, in the city of High Point, and that a police officer of said city requested the defendant to move said automobile from the north side of English street to the other side of said street. The defendant refused to comply with this request on the ground that the ordinance which the police officer was endeavoring to enforce was void, for the reason, first, that the city council had no power to adopt and pass the said ordinance, and, second, that the ordinance is unreasonable in its terms and provisions. The automobile thereafter remained standing on the said street in front of defendant's store for more than fifty minutes, during which time the automobile was not used for any purpose by the defendant or by any one else. All the evidence showed that the defendant willfully violated the ordinance. The motion of the defendant, at the close of all the evidence, for judgment dismissing the action, was properly denied, unless, as con tended by the...