State v. Roberson

• Decision Date: 11 October 1904
• Citation: 48 S.E. 595,136 N.C. 587
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ROBERSON.

48 S.E. 595

136 N.C. 587

STATE

v.ROBERSON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 11, 1904.

employing laborers—license taxes—statutes — validity — construction—taxing power — exercise — courts—jurisdiction —indictment.

1. An indictment that defendant, "at, " etc., "did engage in procuring laborers for employment out of the state without having first paid the license tax" prescribed, etc., sufficiently charged that defendant "engaged in the business of procuring laborers, " within Pub. Laws 1903, p. 347, c. 247, § 74, prohibiting persons from engaging in the business of procuring laborers, etc., without first having paid the tax imposed.

2. Pub. Laws 1903, p. 347, c. 247, § 74, taxing persons engaged in the business of procuring laborers for employment without the state, is a valid exercise of legislative power to tax trades and professions, and is not a police regulation.

3. Pub. Laws 1903, p. 347, c. 247, § 74, imposing a tax of $100 on persons engaged in the business of procuring laborers for employment without the state, is not objectionable on the ground that the tax imposed is excessive and prohibitive, in the absence of evidence or a finding as to the number of persons who might be employed as laborers, and the extent of the business or the profits to be made therein.

4. Since Pub. Laws 1903, p. 347, c. 247, § 74, taxing the business of procuring laborers for employment without the state, is an exercise of legislative power to levy taxes, the courts have no power to review the amount of the tax so imposed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Franklin County; Moore, Judge.

J. W. Roberson was convicted of engaging in the business of procuring laborers for employment without the state without first having paid a license tax, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Day & Bell, T. B. Womack, and Murray Allen, for appellant

The Attorney General, for the State.

CONNOR, J. The defendant was indicted for violating section 74, c. 247, p. 347, Pub. Laws 1903, in the following words: "The jurors for the state, upon their oath present: That J. W. Roberson, late of the county of Franklin, at and in said county, * * * did engage in procuring laborers for employment out of the state without having first paid the license tax, " etc. The defendant made a motion in this court to arrest the judgment for defect in the bill of indictment in that it did not charge that the defendant engaged in the busines of procuring laborers, etc. The statute is in the following words: "On every emigrant agent or person engaged in procuring laborers for employment out of this state, an annual license tax of one hundred dollars for the state and one hundred dollars for the county for each county in which such agent or person does business, the same to be collected by the sheriff. Any one engaging in this business without first paying said tax shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, " etc. It is insisted by defendant's counsel that the statute is enacted and must be sustained under the power conferred upon the Legislature to tax trades, professions, franchises, and incomes (Const, art. 5, § 3); that this section does not empower the Legislature to impose a tax upon the single act of procuring laborers, etc., but upon the business of doing so; that the last clause of the statute makes "engaging in this business" a misdemeanor, and that the charge in the bill must be as broad as the language of the statute. The well-prepared brief cites a number of authorities sustaining this position. We do not question its correctness, and if the bill, upon a reasonable construction, simply charges a procuring of laborers, etc., the motion should be allowed. We are of the opinion, however, that the words "engaged in procuring laborers, " etc., is equivalent to the charge of "engaging in the business, " etc. To say that one is engaged in an occupation signifies much more than the doing of one act in the line of such occupation. It is an expression in common use and well understood—that one is engaged in merchandizing or in practicing law. Webster International Dictionary defines "engage": "To embark in a business; to employ or involve oneself; to enlist." Century Diet: "To occupy oneself; be busied." 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 33. To charge that the defendant "did keep a tenpin alley" was held not to be equivalent to charging that the defendant engaged in the business of keeping a tenpin alley. Eubanks v. State, 17 Ala. 181. If the charge had been that the defendant engaged in keeping a tenpin alley, we think the bill would have been sustained. The motion...