State v. Chestnutt, 436
| Decision Date | 14 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 436,436 |
| Citation | 85 S.E.2d 297,241 N.C. 401 |
| Parties | STATE, v. James F. CHESTNUTT, Bill Collins, Roy Wall, Jr. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Huger S. King, Greensboro, for defendants-appellants.
Atty. Gen. Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen. Ralph Moody, and Charles G. Powell, Jr., and Gerald F. White, Members of Staff, Raleigh, for the State.
Each warrant adopts the phraseology of Ch. 177, Session Laws of 1949, which, in defining the conduct declared to constitute a misdemeanor, provides:
It is noteworthy that the warrant uses the conjunctive 'and' where the statute uses the disjunctive 'or.' The draftsman of the warrant was well advised. State v. Albarty, 238 N.C. 130, 76 S.E.2d 381.
The statute does not disclose a purpose to regulate labor or trade. The purpose of the promotion may be recreation, sport or charity; or it may be a business venture, for profit. The participants may be volunteers or compensated, amateurs or professionals. The race may be widely advertised, drawing large crowds; or it may arise upon a sudden challenge and be known and of interest only to the participants. The statute is thus characterized by its caption: 'An Act Prohibiting Motorcycle and Motor Vehicle Races on Sunday in Wake County.' Since the statute prohibits promotion of and participation in all motor vehicle races on Sunday in Wake County, the undisputed evidence is that the defendants violated the statute as charged in the warrants. Neither the statute nor the warrants refer to 'labor,' 'trade,' 'business venture,' 'compensation,' or other words suggesting that the commercialization of motor vehicle races as distinguished from the motor vehicle races themselves was what the General Assembly purposed to ban.
The acts charged in the warrants are violations of the statute. The motions to quash the warrants and in arrest of judgment were properly overruled, there being no defect appearing on the face of the pleading, verdict or other part of the record. State v. Cochran, 230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E.2d 663. Indeed, one discovers the factual basis for the defendants' position only by consideration of the evidence; and the assignment of error available to defendants is that addressed to the overruling of defendants' motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit.
It appears from the evidence that defendant Chestnutt, through a business corporation, promoted automobile racing in Wake County, arranging for such races, employing participants, selling admission tickets, etc., as a business venture, for profit; and it appears from the evidence that defendants Collins and Wall participated in an automobile race held Sunday, May 9, 1954, in Wake County, under the promotion and supervision of defendant Chestnutt, under an arrangement whereby each was paid for his services in so participating.
The sole ground of defendants' appeal is that the statute is violative of Art. II, sec. 29, of the Constitution of North Carolina, which, in pertinent part, provides:
The General Assembly, exercising the police power of the State, may legislate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people; and Sunday observance statutes and municipal ordinances derive their validity from this sphere of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Boone v. State
...that the legislation does not regulate trade or labor. Smith , 280 N.C. at 510, 187 S.E.2d at 76 (citing State v. Chestnutt , 241 N.C. 401, 403–04, 85 S.E.2d 297, 299 (1955) ); see Williams , 357 N.C. at 189–90, 581 S.E.2d at 429 (concluding that the legislation in question and the related ......
-
State v. Gray
...a warrant thereunder correctly charges them conjunctively.' 4 Strong's N.C.Index 2d, Indictment and Warrant § 9, p. 353; State v. Chestnutt, 241 N.C. 401, 85 S.E.2d 297." The indictment correctly charged the offense of first degree All of the evidence pointed to the procurance of Mrs. Johns......
-
Williams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC
...Hill, 320 N.C. 549, 559, 359 S.E.2d 792, 798 (1987). "Labor" has been defined as "compensated employment," State v. Chestnutt, 241 N.C. 401, 403, 85 S.E.2d 297, 299 (1955), and "trade" has been defined as "a business venture for profit and includes any employment or business embarked in for......
-
State v. Britt
...we find any fatal defect on the face of the record proper which would support defendant's motion for arrest of judgment. State v. Chestnutt, 241 N.C. 401, 85 S.E.2d 297; State v. Higgins, 266 N.C. 589, 146 S.E.2d Defendant next assigns as error the ruling of the trial judge permitting the i......