State v. Vanhook

• Decision Date: 02 November 1921
• Docket Number: 322.
• Citation: 109 S.E. 65,182 N.C. 831
• Parties: STATE v. VANHOOK.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

109 S.E. 65

182 N.C. 831

STATE v. VANHOOK.

No. 322.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 2, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Horton, Judge.

James Vanhook was convicted of operating a dance hall without a permit and he appeals.No error.

Municipal ordinance, forbidding operation of dance hall where admission fees were charged without a permit from the board of aldermen, held a valid exercise of the police power of the state, in view of C.S. c. 56, and of section 2787 thereof giving cities power to license, regulate, or prohibit dance halls.

The warrant issued by the recorder is as follows:

"G W. Proctor, being duly sworn on information, says that James Vanhook, on or about the 26th day of May, 1919, with force and arms, acted in the county aforesaid, and within Durham township, did willfully, maliciously, and unlawfully conduct the business of dance hall, at which an admission fee was charged, he, the said James Vanhook, not having a permit for said dance from the board of alderman against the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state."

On May 7, 1919, the board of alderman of the city of Durham adopted the following ordinance:

"Be it ordained by the board of alderman of the city of Durham that no person, firm, corporation, club or organization shall give, conduct or hold any dance, or conduct or maintain any dance hall within the city of Durham for which a charge shall be made to those attending, which charge is either in the form of admission or entrance dues paid to the person, firm, corporation, club or organization giving or holding the said dance or conducting the said hall or clubroom, without first having obtained the consent of the board of alderman."

After this ordinance was adopted the defendant applied to the board for a license to conduct a dance hall in the city, and the license was refused.There was evidence for the defendant tending to show that he was "the social leader of the colored people of the city"; that he had "cultivated the fine art of dancing"; that he had "let them (aldermen) know he was a man of good character"; and that the board passed upon each application and granted or refused license in their discretion.There was evidence for the state tending to show that there had been "disturbing elements" in the defendant's dance hall, "fights and cursing," and that some arrests had been made there.The defendant kept the hall open without a license.On appeal from the recorder's courthe was convicted in the superior court, and after judgment was pronounced he excepted and appealed.The only question presented is whether the ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power

R. O. Everett, of Durham, for appellant.

James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ADAMS J.

It is conceded that the police power, regarded as an attribute of government, is inherent in the states, and is not a grant derived from the written organic law.The difficulty of drawing the boundary line which divides the police power from the other functions of government has often been recognized, but Judge Cooley's definition of the police power of a state has met the approval of many courts.He says that--

This expression "embraces the whole system of internal regulation, by which the state seeks, not only to preserve the public order and to prevent offenses against the state, but also to establish for the intercourse of citizens with citizens those rules of good manners and good neighborhood which are calculated to prevent a conflict of right and to insure to each the uninterrupted enjoyment of his own so far as is reasonably consistent with a like enjoyment of rights by others."

The police power has been described as the law of necessity, and as the power of self-protection on the part of the community.6 R. C. L. 186.Upon the proper exercise of this power depend the life, safety, health, morals, and comfort of the citizen, the enjoyment of private and social life, the beneficial use of property, and the security of social order.Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394.In Pearsall v. Railway,161 U.S. 666, 16 S.Ct. 705, 40 L.Ed. 838, it is said:

"And so important is this power, and so necessary to the public safety and health, that it cannot be bargained away by the Legislature, and hence it has been held that charters for purposes inconsistent with a due regard for the public health or public morals may be abrogated in the interests of a more enlightened public opinion."

The legal right of the General Assembly to delegate legislative power to municipal corporations is well settled, when the power granted is such as relates to the exercise of governmental functions of limited or local character, or to other legitimate and proper municipal purposes.State v. Austin,114 N.C. 857, 19 S.E. 919, 25 L. R. A. 283, 41 Am. St. Rep. 817;State v. Dudley,109 S.E. 63, at this term.

Chapter 56 of the Consolidated Statute is divided into three subchapters.The first deals with regulations which are independent of the act of 1917, the second, with the ...