State v. Shoaf
Decision Date | 07 April 1920 |
Docket Number | 345. |
Citation | 102 S.E. 705,179 N.C. 744 |
Parties | STATE v. SHOAF. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Ray, Judge.
Fred Shoaf was convicted of unlawfully selling goods on Sunday and he appeals. Error.
A place where wieners and sandwiches were sold, guests seating themselves on stools near a counter, there being no tables was a "restaurant" or "cafe" within the meaning of Pub.Loc.Laws 1919, c. 320, excepting such places from the Sunday Law, the terms "restaurant" and "cafe" being substantially synonymous; a "restaurant" being a place where refreshments food, and drink are served, being indiscriminately used as a name for all places where refreshments can be had, from a mere eating house and cookshop to any other place where tables are furnished, to be consumed on the premises, and a "wiener" being a small sausage of unknown contents commonly called a "hot dog" (citing Words and Phrases, Restaurant).
Defendant was charged with the offense of "unlawfully and willfully exposing for sale his goods and keeping open his place of business on Sunday" in violation of Public Local Laws of 1919, c. 320, which reads as follows, omitting immaterial parts thereof:
"No person, firm or corporation in Forsyth county shall expose for sale, sell or offer for sale on Sunday, any goods wares or merchandise within four miles of the corporate limits of any incorporated town or city; and no store, shop, or other place of business in which goods, wares or merchandise of any kind are kept for sale shall keep open doors from 12 o'clock Saturday night until 12 o'clock Sunday night: Provided, that this act shall not be construed to apply to hotels or boarding houses, or to restaurants or cafés furnishing meals to actual guests, where the same are not otherwise prohibited by law from keeping open on Sunday."
The only witness was E. E. Wooten, who testified:
The place at which defendant sold these meals, or lunches, was within two miles of the corporate limits of Winston-Salem. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit. Motion denied, and he excepted. He was convicted, and appealed from the judgment.
W. T. Wilson and J. B. Craver, both of Winston-Salem, for appellant.
James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
WALKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The facts in this case bring it directly within the purview of the exemption, and not within the prohibition of the statute, being excepted from it by the proviso.
The terms "restaurant" and "café," in common parlance, and, we think, as used in the statute, are substantially synonymous. A restaurant is generally understood to be a place where refreshments, food, and drink are served. Whether they are served to guests seated at a table or on stools at a counter does not affect the definition; that being...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Avent, 654
... ... Citing authority. It has been defined as a place to which a person resorts for the temporary purpose of obtaining a [253 N.C. 586] meal or something to eat. ' State v. Shoaf, 179 N.C. 744, 102 S.E. 705, 9 A.L.R. 426. To the same effect see, 29 Am.Jur., (1960), Innkeepers, § 9, p. 12. In Richards v. Washington F. & M. Ins. Co., 60 Mich. 420, 27 N.W. 586, 588, the Court said: 'A 'restaurant' has no more defined meaning, (than the English word shop), and is used ... ...
-
State v. Pulliam
... ... 1919, as amended by chapter 200 of the Public Local Laws of ... the Extra Session of 1920. The act is commonly known as the ... "Forsyth County Sunday Closing Law," and was ... considered by this court, before the amendment of 1920, in ... State v. Shoaf, 179 N.C. 744, 102 S.E. 705, 9 A. L ... R. 426. The original Act is C. S. § 3957 ... Without ... waiving expressly or specifically a jury trial, the solicitor ... and the attorney for defendant submitted the question ... involved herein to Judge Brock for his decision upon ... ...
-
The Farmers & Drovers National Bank v. Hannaman
... ... The ... question was recently considered by the supreme court of ... North Carolina in construing a similar statute of that state ... (Swift & Co. v. Tempelos, 178 N.C. 487, 101 ... [223 P. 480] ... The ... North Carolina statute reads: ... "'The ... transfer to plaintiff was not a violation of the bulk-sales ... act. (See Smith v. Boyer, 119 S.C. 176, 112 S.E. 71; ... State v. Shoaf, 179 N.C. 744, 102 S.E. 705; In ... re Henningsen, 291 F. 684.) ... The ... defendants contend that the mortgage was void because not ... ...
-
Robert N. Donahue v. David S. Conant
... ... Such transactions, taken ... by themselves, do not make the place a restaurant ... Cecil v. Green, 60 Ill.App. 61, 63; ... State v. Hogan, 30 N.H. 268, 273; In ... re Henery, 124 Iowa 358, 100 N.W. 43, 44 ... A ... "restaurant" is a place where meals and ... 558, 77 ... P. 455, 456, 65 L.R.A. 946; City of Ft. Smith v ... Gunter, 106 Ark. 371, 154 S.W. 181, 183; ... State v. Shoaf", 179 N.C. 744, 102 S.E. 705, ... [102 Vt. 113] 9 A.L.R. 426, note page 428; Richards ... v. Ins. Co., 60 Mich. 420, 27 N.W. 586, 588 ... \xC2" ... ...