The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-29
A TOWNS TIE ON
LIQUOR QUESTION
Wants to Know Whether 1t
Is Wet or Dry.
AND ASKS COURT TO SAY
McNEEIlY VS.. MORGANTON AR
GUED YESTERDAY.
INTERESTING LEGAL POINTS INVOLVED
Statute of 1895 Provided That Majority Must
Be Cast for License, Say Defendants. L
Takes Majority to Change Status,
Saws the Plaintiff.

A rather antique case was argued in
the Supreme court yesterday morning,
involving the quetsion of license to sell
liquor III the town IF Morganton.
The Legislature at the 1895 session,
(chapter 158, Laws of 1880 passed a
special act for the town which provided
for the holding of local option elections
every two years beginning with the first
Monday in May, 1895.
The material facts are that an election
was held ON the first Monday in May.
1898, IN pursuance of the provisions OF
said act and another election was held
on the first Monday in May, 1897, at
both of which elections majority of
votes were east in favor of license, and
consequently license continued to be is
sued to sell liquor Within the corporate
limits CT Morganton until May, 1899.
On the first Monday in May, 1899, an
election was held upon the petition Of the
requisite Number of the qualified voters
of the town, and the result as certified
in accordance with the said section OF
the act of 1895. was a tie vote, an equal
number of votes being cast for and
a93illSI llcellSe.
The vote having resulted in a tie John
A. .McNeely brought action to compel
by writ of mandamus the hoard of town
commissioners to grant license, they hay
ing refused TO do so. The question came
mp as to the construction of the follow
ing section of the statute:
Section 3. IF at said election on the
first Monday in May, eighteen hundred
and ninety-hve (1S95), or any subsequent
election as herein provided, a majority
of votes cast shall have written or print
cd ubon them the word license then
spirituous, yiIl0us and MATT liquors may
be sold within the corporate limits OF
Morganton only in the manner and I'M
der the regulation hereinafter provided
and IN that event it shall be the duty of
the commissioners of said town and the
commissioners Of the county of Burke
card their duty shall be construed 10 be
mandatory and obligatory TO grant IL
cense to all persons who shall prove a
good moral character, and present to the
commissioners of M0rganton a petition
signed by ore third Of the qualified vot-
ers OF the town, recommending them as
suitable persons to sell liquors in said
town. and VINO shall fully comply with
all the provisions Of TINS act.
The plaintiff contended that the cleo
tion of 1899 was invalid because only
II days notice of it was given and only
two instead of ten days We're allowed for
registration, and because an election on
the first Monday In May. 1897 and the
first Monday in May. 1899 are within
two years of each otner. He further
contends that it was the rule Of CON
stl1ietion that it requires majority
vote to change an existing status, and
as MorgaIton was wet town tie
vote could not change it to dry town.
He asked that the old status be enforced
or that a new election be ordered. .
The defendant contended that it was
not in evidence that ample opportunity
to register had not been given. that the
elections were held two years apart with
in the meaning of the statute and that
therefore the election was valid. Being
valid he argues that the statute requires
that a majority of votes cast shall be
for license before license can be granted