State v. Harris
Decision Date | 02 February 1940 |
Docket Number | 146. |
Citation | 6 S.E.2d 854,216 N.C. 746 |
Parties | STATE v. HARRIS. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
This prosecution was begun by a warrant in the Municipal Court in the City of Henderson, whence, from a judgment of guilty, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court of Vance County where the case was heard before Judge Bone upon the original warrant.
The warrant charged the defendant with engaging in the business of dry cleaning without first having procured a license so to do, in violation of Chapter 30, Public Laws of 1937, as amended by Chapter 337, Public Laws of 1939. The license referred to in the warrant was not that required of dry cleaners under the Revenue Act, but was a license authorized to be issued by the State Dry Cleaners Commission, created by Section 2 of the statute above cited. The indictment is under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act, to which more specific reference is made below.
On the trial the defendant admitted that he was engaged in the business defined in the statute, but denied that he was guilty of any offense. The statute, he contends, is unconstitutional and void in a number of particulars discussed in the opinion, but chiefly because it interferes with his right of choice and pursuit of one of the innocuous ordinary callings of life in his endeavor to earn a livelihood.
For convenience in discussion we refer to the following provisions of the law:
Among the definitions in Section 1, we find the following:
The Act proceeds to create, for the business thus defined, a Commission to be known as the "State Dry Cleaners Commission". The Commission consists of five members, "three of whom shall have been engaged in the dry cleaning, dyeing and/or pressing business in the State of North Carolina for at least five years next preceding his appointment, and two of whom shall not be connected with said business but shall be from the public at large". Section 2. The members of the Commission are to receive $5 a day while attending Commission meetings and necessary traveling expenses. The Commission elects its Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and adopts rules and by-laws for its organization and proceeding and adopts and uses the seal. It is further authorized and empowered to "incur any and all expenses deemed necessary by it for the administration and enforcement of this Act, and to appoint a secretary, who need not be a member of the Commission, and such other clerks, inspectors, and other assistants as it may deem necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act, and fix their duties, compensation, and terms of service, as well as the employment of such lawyers as may be approved by the Attorneys General, all of which shall be paid out of the funds collected by the Commission as provided in this Act."
We quote Section 3 in full:
Section 5 of the Act provides as follows: Applicable to defendant's business, as designated in this section, was $25 for license as "retail plant".
Section 7 provides: "Except pending an appeal, as hereinbefore provided, any person who shall engage in the business of dry cleaning, dyeing and/or pressing, as herein defined, without first having secured a license or certificate from said Commission so to do, or who shall continue to do the business of dry cleaning, dyeing and/or pressing after the suspension or revocation of a license issued by the Commission, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars, nor exceeding one hundred dollars, and each day during which this violation shall continue shall be deemed a separate offense."
Section 8 reads as follows: "Licenses in this Act shall be imposed as an additional State license fee for the privilege of carrying on the business, exercising the privilege, or doing the acts named herein, and nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve any person, firm, corporation, or association of persons from the payment of the fee prescribed under section five hereof."
The provisions of the Constitution on which defendant relies are reproduced for convenient reference:
Article I, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King v. Town of Chapel Hill
...right to "earn a livelihood." Roller v. Allen, 245 N.C. 516, 518–19, 96 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1957) ; see also State v. Harris, 216 N.C. 746, 759, 6 S.E.2d 854, 863 (1940) ("While many of the rights of man, as declared in the Constitution, contemplate adjustment to social necessities, some of th......
-
N.C. B. & Tavern Ass'n v. Cooper
...of personal liberty and the freedom to choose and pursue one of the ordinary harmless callings of life[.]" 216 N.C. 746, 748, 751, 753, 6 S.E.2d 854, 856, 858–59 (1940). Likewise, in State v. Ballance, our Supreme Court held statutory licensing requirements for the practice of photography v......
-
Howell v. Cooper
...exclude persons from engaging in it. When this field has been reached, the police power is severely curtailed." State v. Harris , 216 N.C. 746, 759, 6 S.E.2d 854, 863 (1940) (citations omitted). The Harris court held licensing requirements applicable to the dry cleaning industry were uncons......