State v. . Stevens

Citations

• 19 S.E. 861
• 114 N.C. 873

Syllabus

<p>Retailing Liquor Without-License — Oity Ordinance — State Law — Finer—Penalty.</p> <p>1. Where, by section 36 of cl). Ill, Acts of 1883, the Legislature empowered the city of Asheville to levy and collect upon every license to retail spirituous or malt liquors a tax not exceeding 8500, and by section 19 of said act authorized the Board of Aldermen of said city “to regulate and restrain tippling-houses”: Held, that the city had authority to impose such license tax and to pass all needful ordinances to carry into effect the intent and meaning of the act of the Legislature and to impose a fine or penalty for the violation of the same.</p> <p>2. Although the act of selling liquor without license in violation of the revenue laws of the State and of its police regulations, and also of the ordinance of a city, is one act, the offences are different, for which the offender must answer in the proper jurisdictions; therefore an ordinance of a city imposing a fine or penalty for selling liquor without license does not conflict with the general laws of the State prohibiting the sale of liquor without license, and is therefore valid.</p> <p>3. Such ordinance being valid, and the violation of it being made by , statute a misdemeanor of which a Mayor has jurisdiction, a prosecution under it does not conflict with any criminal action pending or that may be instituted against the defendant on account of the alleged selling as an act in violation of the general State, law.</p> <p>4. The words “fine” and “penalty” being used interchangeably, an objection to an ordinance that it provides a “fine” instead of a “penalty” for its violation, is without force.</p> <p>Avery, J. dissents.</p>