The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-04-28

the right to change the name of the
board by which the institution was gov
erned, from the Board of Directors to
that of the Board of Trustees, but that
in DOING SO It left the Board the office to
be filed by officers. Nichols VS.. Mckee,
6S n. c., 400. The Act did not in fact
abolish the offices by changing the name
of the Board, although the Act declared
that the Board of Directors was abolish
ed. The offices were left as before and
the abolition of the Board of Directors
was one of words only.
The craftsman of the Act of 1897
would have done well to have looked at
the Act of 1S70-'71 and the decision of
this court upon it, We have examined
the Act of 1897 carefully and there IS
not one single duty required of the new
Board of Trustees that was not required
of the old board of directors. There is /
no change as to duties, rights or pow
ers. There is nothing in the Act, but
the same old offices with changed names,
with the same duties, rights and privil
eyes as were provided under the old law
In fact the latter part of section 3 which
amends sections 2241, 2242, 2243 and
2244 of The Code by striking out the old
names of the Asylums and substituting
new ones declares that "Those sections
of the Code thus amended and Chapter
2 Vol. 2 of The Code, except as herein
after provided, are re-enacted." There
follows the above provisO no other prOvi-
sion except the one changing the name
of the office of Superintendent to that of
Principal and Resident Physician. And
the latter part of section 6 Of The Act
provides that Chapter 2 Volume 2 of
The Code shall in all respects apply to
the corporations hereby created except as
modified by section s of this Act'-sec-
ton being in these words 1T is the
the intention of the General Assembly
that the trustees herein provided for shall
be Offices within the meaning of section
Z of Article XIV of The Constitution,
and they are declared to be special trus-
tees for the special purposes of this Act"
These places have been held to be Offices,
as we have declared in this opinion, and
the Legislature by simply declaring that
they shall not be offices does not change
the nature of the thing.
In the case of Clark VS.. Stanly, GO y.
G. GO Chief Justice Pearson delivering
the opinion of the court, defining what
a public office is said: "A public office
is an agency for the State, and the per-
son whose duty it is to perform this agen-
cy is a public officer. The essence of It
is the duty of performing an agency,
that is, of doing some act or acts or series
Of acts for the State 1t is as idle under
the decisions of this court to say that
such a position as these defendants hold
is not an office, as it would be to say
that a horse is not horse because one
choose 10 coll him 0h ar n
mall
We are of the opinion upon a careful ex-
animation of the Act. that it is an amend
ment, as it declares itself to be, of Chap
ter Vol. . of The Code and not a re-
peal of that chapter. 1t is true that in
the first section it declares that 1.-THE
charters of said hospitals, by whatever
name, and all acts amendatory of said
charters, are hereby repealed" yet with
the exception of change N the names
of the offices and of the institutions with
some insignificant details about the sala-
refs of the superintendent and the APP
pointment of the directors the whole of
Chapter . Vol. of The Code, apPI,ica-
BILE to the directors of the North Caro-
lima Insane Asylum. not in conflict with
the provisions of this Act, are hereby
made applicable to the Board of Trus-
tees of the State Hospital for the Insane
and the Western HOspital for the Insane
and as modified by this Act are hereby
re-enacted.'
In State VS.. Williams, III n. c., 753,
it is said: The re-enactment by the Leg
islature of a law in the terms of a for
mer law al the same tine It repeats the
former law whose provisions are thus
former law whosep rovisions are thus
continued without any intermssiOn." The
effect of the Act then is that it has only
prospective operation as to the change
of the name of the institution and the
names of the offices Connected with it. and
that the defendants (the incumhents) are
entitled to hold on TO their offices-the
defendant Kirby for the term for which
he was elected and the other defendants
for the terms for which they were APP
pointed and until their successors are duly
elected and appointed and qualify. There
is no error in the judgment of the court
below and the same is affirmed
No. 152 Lusk ct al, appellants VS.. Saw
yer ct al.
A. c. Avery and J. c. l.. Harris for
appellant.
r. o. Burton and +. I. Osborne for APP
pellec.
Per Curtain: For the reasons assigned
in Wood VS.. Belamy the judgment of the
court below IS affirmed.
No. 154, Person ct al, appellants VS..
Switzerland eft al.
NacRae and Day for appellants.
w. {. Munroe. Aycock and Daniels
and /. f. Dortch for appellees.
Dnr CursoY7 Tho zoo.n,,e
in Wood VS.. Bellamy the Judgment Of the
court below is affirmed.
aDa ;1ov " Dnpp