State v. Smith, 651.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 651.,651. |
| Citation | 211 N.C. 206,189 S.E. 509 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. SMITH. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; W. C. Harris, Judge.
R. C. Smith was convicted of violating a traffic ordinance of the City of Greensboro forbidding the parking of more than two taxicabs owned by the same company in a single block at the same time, and he appeals.
Action dismissed.
Criminal prosecution tried upon warrant charging defendant with violation of traffic ordinance of City of Greensboro, to wit, "park taxi in block with more than two others."
The ordinance alleged to have been violated provides that, "Not more than two taxicabs owned by the same company shall be parked in one block at the same time, " except at established taxi-Stands, etc.
Verdict: Guilty.
Judgment: Fine of $1 and costs. Defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Shelley B. Caveness, of Greensboro, for appellant.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen, and Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen, for the State.
The defendant by his appeal seeks to test the constitutionality of the traffic ordinance which makes it unlawful for more than two taxicabs, owned by the same company, to be parked in a single block in the City of Greensboro at the same time. The warrant is not sufficient to charge a violation of the ordinance. Indeed, it charges no offense at all. The action will be dismissed on authority of State v. Beasley, 196 N.C. 797, 147 S.E. 301, and State v. Shipman, 203 N.C. 325, 166 S.E. 298.
It is not after the manner of appellate courts to decide constitutional questions except in the exercise of judicial power properly invoked. State v. Williams, 209 N.C. 57, 182 S.E. 711; In re Parker, 209 N.C. 693, 184 S.E. 532; Newman v. Watkins, 208 N.C. 675, 182 S.E. 453; Wood v. Braswell, 192 N.C. 588, 135 S.E. 529. A warrant that charges no offense will not suffice for such invocation, even though its invalidity be observed sua sponte. State v. Beasley, supra.
Action dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hagedorn v. Hagedorn
... ... The error was thus cured. Gray v ... High Point, 203 N.C. 756, 166 S.E. 911; State v ... Lattimore, 201 N.C. 32, 158 S.E. 741; Nance v ... Fertilizer Co., 200 N.C. 702, 158 S.E ... ...
-
State v. Lueders
...is not the custom of appellate courts to decide constitutional questions except in the exercise of judicial power properly invoked. State v. Smith, supra; State v. 209 N.C. 57, 182 S.E. 711; In re Parker, 209 N.C. 693, 184 S.E. 532. Indeed, it is only in such cases, i. e., in cases calling ......
-
State v. Nichols
...214 N.C. 579, 199 S.E. 918. The warrant here charges that the defendant "did unlawfully * * * operate a press shop". State v. Smith, 211 N.C. 206, 189 S.E. 509. These defects, though observed sua sponte, preclude a consideration of the constitutional question. State v. Lue-ders, supra; Stat......
-
Horner v. Chamber of Commerce of City of Burlington
...225 N.C. 430, 35 S.E.2d 273; Turner v. Reidsville, 224 N.C. 42, 29 S.E.2d 211; State v. Lueders, 214 N.C. 558, 200 S.E. 22; State v. Smith, 211 N.C. 206, 189 S.E. 509; State v. Ellis, 210 N.C. 166, 185 S.E. 663; In re Parker, 209 N.C. 693, 184 S.E. 532; City of Goldsboro v. W. P. Rose Build......