State v. . Stovall

9 S.E. 900, 103 N.C. 416

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: February 5, 1889
• Status: Published

Opinion

Davis, J.

(after stating the case). The defendant insists that the statute under which he is indicted is unconstitutional; that by the amendment in ch. 33, Private Acts of 1887, the Roanoke and Tar River Agricultural Society lost its original character and became a joint stock company, and the effect of the prohibitory section is to confer upon the association privileges denied to individuals, and is therefore in violation of Art. I, sec. 7, of the Constitution, which declares that “ no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services,” and also of section 31 of the same article, which declares that “ perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free State, and ought not to be allowed.”

We are unable to see that any privilege or right is conferred upon “ any man or set of men” which is denied to others, nor are we able to perceive that any “ perpetuities or monopoly ” is created by the act. Neither the corporation nor the corporators, nor any one else, can lawfully do, “ within one-half mile of the grounds of thé Roanoke and Tar River Agricultural Association,” what the defendant is charged wi th having done. Whether the society can grant privileges “ within ” its grounds, under such regulations as it may prescribe, is not presented for our consideration, but we can see nothing in the prohibitory section to prevent it.

The power of the Legislature to enact laws conferring police powers and regulating traffic, &c., within particular localities, seems to be well settled. Intendent and Comm’rs of Raleigh v. Sorrell, 1 Jones, 49; State v. Muse, 4 D. & B., 319; Muller v. Commissioners, 89 N. C., 171; State v. Joyner, 81 N. C., 534. Sections 1079, 3670 and 3671 of The Code impose restrictions and regulations, the constitutionality of which have never been questioned. No vested rights are interfered with by such regulations. Cooley’s Const. Lim, 746 to 750, 594 to 598; Phelps v. Raney, 60 N. Y., 10.

Organizations such as the Roanoke and Tar River Agricultural Society are justly considered of public benefit, and large numbers of people congregate at their fairs, and from the very nature of such assemblies, regulations for the preservation of order are necessary, and the Legislature has the powei’vto enact such laws and provide for such regulations as will preserve the good order and promote the interest and comfort of those who assemble for purposes of pleasure’ or for the advancement of agricultural interests. The statute deprives no one of any vested right — interferes with no one’s '“regular business.”

No error. Affirmed.