The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-10-12
TOWN FINES AND
THE SCHOOL FUND
An Important Question for
the Courts.
Will DR. ADrlIEn TOnAN
WILL BE ARGUED TODAY
EVERY COUNTY AND TOWN ARE
AFFECTED.
MANY THOUSANDS or DOLLARS INVOLVED
The Question is Whether Fines and Pena ties
Collected, When Acting as J. p,
Can be Put into the Town.
Treasury.

A very important case will be argued
in the Supreme Court this morning.
1t is entitled the Board of Education
of Vance county against the town of
Henderson. But every county and town
and school board in the State is interest
ed in it and will he effected by the de-
ciSiOn of the court.
This is q civil action brought in the
Superior court of Vance county TO reeoy-
er certain fines and penalties which have
been collected by the town of Hender-
son in the administration of the govern
ment of the town since its incorporation
in 1871, and which have been applied
to the payment of the r,ecessary current
expenses in maintaining and keeping up
the police of said town.
The action is brought by the Board of
Education of Vance county, and is based
upon article 8. section 5, of the Consti-
tuition, which provides that.
"All moneys, stocks, bonds and other
property belonging to a county school
fund; ALSO, all the net proceeds from the
sale of estrays; also, THE clear proceeds
of all penalties and forfeitures, and of
al fines collected in the several counties
for any breach of the penal or military
laws of the State; and all moneys which
Shall be paid by persons as an equivalent
for exemption from military duty, shall
belong and remain in the several coun-
ties, and shall be faithfully appropriated
for establishing and maintaining free
public schools in the several counties Of
this State"
Upon the hearing his Honor Judge
Moore adjudged the plaintiff entitled 10
recover all fines collected for violations
of the laws of the State for three years
next before the beginning of the action;
hut held all others barred. and also held
that fines imposed for violations of the
ordinances of the town beiong to the
town and not to the school fund. Both
sides appealed.
The provision of the Constitution re-
ferred to was adopted in 1868, though
slightly changed in phraseology in sbe
year 1875 1t seems, thereforts, that the
plaintiffs cannot claim any fines imposed
before those dates.
The plaintiffs contend:
j. That the Legislative enactmen.s
creating the town do not give or profess
to give the fines, forfeitures and penal
ties to the town.
2. That any penalty that can be re
covered in the name of the town. of
Henderson and without arresting the
defendants. and without invoking the
principle that incllrring this penalty is
a nlisdemeanOr, a penal law of the
State, properly belongs to the town. All
others are imposed for breaches Of State
laws for crimes or misdemeanors, and
are fines, and by the express letter OF The
Constitntion go to the school fund.
s. That every towliAis in, and part Of,
county. Every mayor is by virtue Of
his office an officer OF the county,
justice of the peace. The mayors court
is recognized as part of the county and
judicial systems: appeals lie from il 10
the Superior court of the county. He
imposes fines not as mayor but rs jas-
dice of the peace.
A. That this case is not mentioned in
any of the subdivisions of the ten-years
statute of limitation, Code, 152), nor in
any of the divisions Of section 154, the
six-years' statute. The one-year stat
ute, section 1876 in subdivision 2, refers
to an action to recover a penalty given
by a statute. This is an action to re-
cover money collected for plaintiff and
not paid over and is not TO recover a
penalty giyen by a statute. 1t is en-
braced under three-years' statute, Sec
ton 155, subsection / or section 15S,
which is for all other causes not therein
provided for i'm the ten years statute
or none at all. Now the county of
Vance was formed in the year 1881, and
the authority of plaintiff to sue was rot
conferred until March IL, 1899 and
that less than ten years accrued there
after before this action was begun on
September 20, 1898 1T is therefore clear
that the ten-years statute does hot bar
plaintiffs; and while it may be that the
County Commissioners or County Treas
urer might have sued before that time.
no one but plaintiff could have sued
since.
5. That the act of 1899 (chaDter 12S)
was passed to kill this case, but to do it
a constitutional amendment with an ex
post facto clause was necessary.
In answer to this the defendant con-
tends:
/. That this action can not be main