The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-15
FOR CONSUL
AND GAVE HIS NAME TO TIE
POPE OF ROME.
A LEARNED OPINION BY JUSTICE CLARK
Another Road Decision Handed Down by the
Supreme Court. A lick Man Is Not LA
BILE to Road Duty and Therefore
Not to the Tax.
Not to the Tax.

down another TOau ueclSIOlf-State VS..
Covington. from Richmond county.
This was am Indictment for failure
to work the roads by one liable to such
duty, after being notified and without
paying the 81 to procure the excmp-
tom.
LAS a defense, COyingtOn contended--
and the jury so found i'm a special YER
dict-''that he was sick on that day. and
was sick that he was unable to WORK
the road 1t having been decided that
the statutory requirement to work On
the public roads is not a tax, but
duty, the court in this case holds that
sickness causing inability to perform it
is full defence. The 81 to be paid the
day before 10y each person not Intending
to work is a payment eXacted Of those
who have no sufficient excuse Tor hot
rendering the service. and who are thus
authorized to procure exemption by
paying an amount deemed sufficient to
purchase substitute. The statute
does not require the 81 of one who by
reason of illness is unable to perform
the duty"
In conclusion Judge Clark, who writes
the opinion of the court, has this to
say of road laws in general:
Working the roads by CONSUMPTION
of labor was the common law method
1t was part of the trinOda ncceSsitas
from which no man was exempt, ana
the same was the rule under the civil or
Roman law, nullum genus hominum,
nullinsque dignitatis &C yenerationiS
meritis cessara oportet, c. ii. 74,4. AS
late as the statute ID Gecr@e III c. IS
Q773) the duty of working the public
roads was obligatory upon all able-bodIed
males between the ages sof is and to
or to send a laborer, but this statute
limited the exactiOn to six days In the
year (like our Code section 2,01O and
required property TO contribute in teams
and i'm money. This was an advance
ON the previous Common Law system,
under which labor alone bore the bur
den of maintaining the highway, and
in its turn has long years ago been SUI
perseded i'm England by the present
system of working the roads by taxation.
In France the same duty was imposed
upon labor alone of working the high
ways q duty known as corveeS, a
grievance which contributed powerfully
to their Revolution of Il century ago,
since which time the roads have been
worked by taxation. The supervision of
roads and bridges was held so honor
able duty among the Romans that
their highest religious official was styled
Pontifex MaXimus, i. e., head bridge
builder" whence the title of Pontiff
still worm by the Pope, and Cicero Ill
his letters to Atticus Il, /, ep. - says
that a road overseer was a colleague
of Julius Caesar in his candidacy for the
consulship Il Ri. Com. 35S, note.'')
Opinions were handed down by the
court yesterday as follows:
Rhodes VS.. Rhodes, from Moore, no
error.
Norton VS.. McLaurin, from Richmond,
reversed.
AIcCaskill VS.. McKinnon, from Rich
mond. error.
Roberts VS.. Southern Pines, from
Moore, affirmed.
State VS.. Covington, from Richmond,
affirmed.
Murray VS.. Switzerland, from Pen
der, affirmed.
Per Curtain orders in the following
cases:
Kennedy VS.. Railroad, from Moore,
affirmed.
Brown VS.. Railroad, from Cumber-
land. affirmed.
Flake VS.. Railroad, from, Anson, af
frmed.
Geddic vs. Breeze, from Cumberland,
affirmed.
Eighth district appeals were argued
yesterday as follows:
State VS.. McIver by Attorney General
for the State; Douglass a. Simms for
defendant.
State VS.. Burgess, by Attorney Gem
eral for the State, j. II. Morehead for
defendant.
State VS.. Ridge, two cases. by Attor-
ney General for the State, j. II. More
head for defendant.
Bluton VS.. McRae, Douglass q Simms
for appellee.
Bradford VS.. Reed, by Montgomery Il
Crowell for appellee
Clement VS.. Roseman, by I. +. Kluttz
for plaintiff, Kerr Craig for defendant,
and brief 10y ~ G. Linn.
Ward VS.. Manufacturing Company, by
Armfield & TURNER and III. p. Grier by
brief for plaintiff; b. Il. Long and w.
j. Montgomery for defendant. Judge
Furches having been of counsel did not
sit ON the hearing of this case)
WEIGH VS.. Cheek, by j. A Barringer
by brief for plaintiff, j. Il. Morehead
for defendant.
Wooten VS.. White and Conger by b.
f. Long for plaintiff, II. Burke, r. b.
Mclaughlin and Ii. p. Grier by brief
for defendant.
Appeals from the NINTH district will
he heard ON Tuesday, November 21st,
in the following order:
State VS.. Ch2ffin.
White VS.. Fox
Butner VS.. Blevins.
Morefeld VS.. Harris.
Hodgin VS.. Bank.
James VS.. Withers
Wall VS. Wall
Hennings VS.. Doss.
The case of Ice Company VS.. Railroad
will be argued after the cases from the
Ninth district are heard.