State v. Garner
| Decision Date | 03 April 1912 |
| Citation | 158 N.C. 630,74 S.E. 458 |
| Parties | STATE. v. GARNER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Animals (§ 34*) — Running at Large— Criminal Prosecution.
Where an owner of a cow was prosecuted for willfully violating the regulations of the board of agriculture in permitting a cow to move from a quarantined area into one free from quarantine, that there was no stock law fence between the two areas would not relieve him from liability under the indictment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. § 34.*]
2. Animals (§ 34*) — Running at Large-Criminal Prosecution.
The fact that cattle were allowed to run at large in a county quarantined by the board of agriculture would not excuse from criminal liability a person who permitted a cow to move from such county to one free from quarantine.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. § 34.*]
3. Animals (§ 34*) — Running at Large-Criminal Prosecution — "Willfully Allowed."
Under Revisal 1905, § 3294, making it a misdemeanor to willfully violate any regulation of the board of agriculture for the quarantine of animals, etc., in a prosecution for "allowing" a cow to run at large, by reason of which she strayed from quarantined territory into territory free from infection, the mere fact that the defendant allowed the cow to run at large and that she crossed the line was sufficient to establish that he "willfully" allowed her to move across the line.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. § 34.*
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 8, pp. 7468-7481, 7835-7836.]
4. Animals (§ 34*) — Running at Large-Criminal Liability.
In a prosecution for allowing a cow to move from infected territory into territory free from quarantine, it is not necessary to show that she was infected where the regulation of the board of agriculture on which the prosecution was based provided that "no cattle" shall be moved or "allowed to move" from infected territory across the line.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. § 93; Dec. Dig. § 34.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Moore County; Cooke, Judge.
Prosecution of Jim Garner for allowing cattle to move out of a quarantined area. From a judgment of acquittal on a special verdict, the State appeals. Reversed.
The Attorney General, for the State.
R. L. Burns, for appellee.
CLARK, C. J. Indictment under Rev. 1905, § 3294, for "allowing" cattle to move from a quarantined area in North Carolina into that portion of the state lying north and west of the quarantine line established by the board of agriculture, i. e., from Hoke county into Moore. The special verdict finds that defendant owned a cow which was infected with the cattle fever tick, and permitted her to run at large in Hoke county from his home, one-fourth of a mile from the county line, and she strayed into Moore county. It further appears that Hoke county is nonstock law territory, and there was no fence between Hoke and Moore counties.
It is immaterial that there was no stock law fence between Hoke and Moore counties, and that cattle are allowed to run at large in Hoke county. The defendant is not indicted for violation of any stock law in permitting his cow to run at large. Indeed, his counsel in this court rested his defense purely upon the ground that it was not shown that the defendant "willfully" violated the regulation of the board of agriculture, which provides: "No cattle shall be moved or allowed to move from any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ely Lilly & Co. v. Saunders
... ... produced or distributed by others, shall be deemed in ... violation of any law of the State of North Carolina by reason ... of any of the following provisions which may be contained in ... such contract: (a) That the buyer will not resell ... regulations may be granted to recognized governmental ... agencies and instrumentalities, State v. Garner, 158 ... N.C. 630, 74 S.E. 458; State v. Southern Railroad ... Co., 141 N.C. 846, 54 S.E. 294; and (3) limited powers ... as to the finding of ... ...
-
Durham Provision Co. v. Daves
... ... provisions of which are as follows: ... "Section ... 1. That in any county of this state in which there is now ... established by law whether by general or special act or in ... which there may hereafter be established by general or ... the state, and to give to such regulations the force and ... effect of law. State v. Garner, 158 N.C. 630, 74 ... S.E. 458; State v. Southern R. Co., 141 N.C. 846, 54 ... S.E. 294; Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U.S. 217, 9 S.Ct ... 277, 32 L.Ed ... ...
-
State v. Lovelace
...Board, 97 Fla. 750, 122 So. 239, 65 A.L.R. 508; Rasmussen v. State of Idaho, 181 U.S. 198, 21 S.Ct. 594, 45 L.Ed. 820; State v. Garner, 158 N.C. 630, 74 S.E. 458; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Bahnsen, D.C., 300 233. The regulations above referred to as existing in many of the states of the......
-
State v. Hodges
...to make regulations within the purview of this section was upheld in State v. R. R., 141 N. C. 846, 54 S. E. 294, and State v. Garner, 158 N. C. 630, 74 S. E. 458. The Legislature can authorize municipalities to require persons to be vaccinated (State v. Hay, 126 N. C. 999, 35 S. E. 459, 49......