State v. . Ashe

161 S.E. 709, 202 N.C. 75, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 429

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: January 8, 1932
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stact, C. J.

Is a municipal ordinance valid which makes it unlawful for any lewd'woman, regardless of her purpose, to appear upon the public streets, or in any public building, store, shop, or other place of business, within the town of Murphy? -Ye think not.

The ordinance is unduly restrictive of the rights and liberties of the defendants. S. v. Webber, 107 N. C., 962, 12 S. E., 598. However much they may have offended against the decencies of society, or run counter to the prevailing code of morals, or rendered themselves non grata persones to the community, still they are human beings, citizens of a great Commonwealth, and entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

To deny to anyone, not lawfully imprisoned, the right to travel the highways, to buy goods, to eat bread, to attend Divine Worship, and the like, simply because he or she happens, for the time being, to belong to an unfortunate class, is an unwarranted use of the police power. 19. R. O. L., 845. Such an attempt at discrimination is unreasonable and in contravention of common right. Milliken v. City Council, 54 Tex., 388, 38 Am. Rep., 629.

Furthermore, the class intended to be outlawed by the ordinance is not altogether definite and certain. It is somewhat elastically described. Snow v. Witcher, 31 N. C., 346.

We need not pause to debate whether the clause against “loitering” might be upheld, as the conviction is based on the general provisions of the ordinance. Peoples v. Bergen, 169 N. Y. S., 319.

The motion of defendants for judgment as in case of nonsuit will be sustained as provided by C. S., 4643.

Reversed.