State v. Crenshaw
| Citation | 94 N.C. 877 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1886 |
| Parties | STATE v. ALICE CRENSHAW. |
This was a WARRANT issued by the mayor of the town of Durham, for violation of a town ordinance, and was carried by appeal to the Superior Court of DURHAM county, when it was tried at the Fall Term, 1885, before Gilmer, Judge, and a jury.
The defendant was found guilty, and from the judgment pronounced by the Court, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.
Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. W. W. Fuller, for the defendant .
The defendant was arrested by virtue of a warrant, granted by the mayor of the town of Durham, charging her criminally for an alleged violation of an ordinance of that town, whereof the following is a copy:
“Any person who shall assault, oppose, or resist, or in any manner abuse, or insult any officer of the town, or member of the police, while in the discharge of any duty, shall forfeit and pay not more than fifty dollars, or suffer imprisonment not to exceed one month.”
Before the mayor, the defendant pleaded not guilty; upon the trial she was found guilty, and there was judgment against her, from which she appealed to the Superior Court, where she was again found guilty, and there was judgment there against her, from which she appealed to this Court.
The charge in the warrant cannot be sustained as a criminal offence. The ordinance, for an alleged violation of which it is preferred, is void for uncertainty. It prescribes a penalty for a violation of its provisions, of “not more than fifty dollars,” that is, it may, in the discretion of the mayor, be any sum less than that designated. It is settled, that penalties such as those prescribed in town ordinances, must be for a definite, fixed sum of money. An ordinance in substance like that before us, was expressly held to be void, in Commissioners v. Harris, 7 Jones, 281; State v. Zigler, 32 N. J. L., 269; 1 Dill on Mun. Corps., §337, et seq.
The ordinance further provides, that whoever violates its provisions, shall pay such penalty as that mentioned, “or suffer imprisonment, not to exceed one month.” This provision is also void. The charter of the town, (Pr. Acts 1874-' 75, ch. 110), does not authorize the commissioners thereof to prescribe imprisonment for a violation of an ordinance made by them. It only authorizes the imprisonment of a person so offending, if he fails to pay the penalty incurred, when judgment therefor shall be obtained against him.
Nor does the general statute law of the State, in relation to “towns and cities,” (The Code, Vol. 2, ch. 62), authorize imprisonment for a violation of town ordinances. The Code, §1804, provides, that, “They, (the commissioners of towns), may enforce their by-laws and regulations, by imposing penalties on such as violate them, and compel the performance of the duties they impose upon others, by suitable penalties.”
By the term penalty, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal Of Parker.
...the restrictions are upon rear line fences are almost as difficult to perceive. The ordinance is well nigh void for uncertainty. State v. Crenshaw, 94 N.C. 877. It is admitted that a retaining wall along the edges of this lot was necessary. It is not denied that such a retaining wall could ......
-
Appeal of Parker
... ... Commissioners, 186 N.C. 490, 120 S.E. 46; Lee v ... Waynesville, 184 N.C. 565, 568, 115 S.E. 51; State ... v. Vanhook, 182 N.C. 831, 109 S.E. 65; Dula v ... School Trustees, 177 N.C. 426, 99 S.E. 193; Rollins ... v. Winston-Salem, 176 N.C ... upon rear line fences are almost as difficult to perceive ... The ordinance is well nigh void for uncertainty. State v ... Crenshaw, 94 N.C. 877 ... It is ... admitted that a retaining wall along the edges of this lot ... was necessary. It is not denied that ... ...
-
Holley v. Coggin Pontiac, Inc., 7815SC1102
...must be for a sum certain. State v. Maultsby, 139 N.C. 583, 51 S.E. 956 (1905); Commissioners v. Harris, 52 N.C. 281 (1859); State v. Crenshaw, 94 N.C. 877 (1886). Contra: Dowd v. Seawell, 14 N.C. 185 (1831); Dozier v. Bray, supra. We do not go so far as to say in this case that multiple da......
-
State v. Addington
... ... but not of a penalty; the amount of the latter being certain, ... though the Legislature might, perhaps, impose a penalty of ... uncertain amount. Commissioners v. Harris, 52 N.C ... 281; State v. Cainan, 94 N.C. 883; State v ... Crenshaw, 94 N.C. 877; State v. Rice, 97 N.C ... 421, 2 S.E. 180. In the second place, the statute requires ... that the defendant shall be committed in default of the ... payment of the fine, and, lastly, this court has so construed ... the statute in former decisions. State v. Burton, ... 113 N.C ... ...