The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-25
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
(Reported by Jos. L. Scawell.)

STATE VS.. IRWIN. No error.
A provision in town charter confer
ring uopn it ''the power to levy and col
lect taxes on all persons and subjects of
taxation which it is in the power of the
General Assembly to tax for State and
county purposes under the Constitution -
is not repugnant to Section A. Article VIII
of the Constitution as not restricting
the limit of taxation Estate VS.. Worth,
JIG N. c. 1007), nor in violation of Section
g, Article VII of the Constitution in ref
erence to uniformit of taxation (Rosen-
baum vs. Newbern, 11S N. C. S3), and it
is competent under such provision in the
charter, for the aldermen to levy tax
of $40 upon tobacco buyers within the
town, without stating in the ordinance
for what purpose the tax is imposed; and
such ordinance and the provision in the
charter authorizing the same are not in
violation of Section T. Article VII of the
Constitution that no tax shall "be levied
or collected by any town /. except
for the necessary expenses thereof unless
by vote of the majority of the qualified
voters therein"
Defendant was charged with violating
town ordinance imposing a privilege
tax of $40 upon tobacco buyers in the
town of Kinston. There was no specific
fine or penalty imposed by the ordinance
for it's violation, but before the passage
of the ordinance the board had passed
an ordinance providing that ''the viola
tion of any ordinance to which no specific
fine or penalty is fixed is a misdemeanor
and shall subject the offender to fine
of not more than $50 or imprisonment for
thirty days" The defendant was convict
ed and appealed held that the ordinance
imposing the fine is void by reason of the
uncertainty in the amount of the fine (94
N. c. SIT and 383; 81 N. c. 42D, but the
defendant is guilty of a misdemeanor UNI
der Section 1920 of The Code for violating
a valid town ordinance.
Upon the objection that a town ordi-
nance was not passed as required by its
charter, it is competent to produce, in
support of it's validity, the record of the
meeting of the board of aldermen at
which the ordinance was passed.
KING VS.. FOUNTAIN. Reversed.
The general rule that contracts in re-
straint of trade are void as against pub
lie policy, will be modified in order to
protect the business of the covenantee or
promisee when this can be done without
detriment to the public interest. Here,
the defendant who was engaged in the
livery business at Greenville, sold his
teams and vehicles to the plaintiff for
a valuable consideration and agreed with
plaintiff that he would not engage in any
other livery business in Greenville for
the period of three years. Soon thereafter
the defendants wife engaged in the liv-
cry business in said town and employed
the defendant to superintend the bust
ness; held that the contract was valid
and that the defendants employment by
his wife amounted to breach thereof
Baker VS.. Gordon, SO N. c. 116.
MAROON VS.. r. & A. A. L. RAILROAD
co. Affirmed.
1t is a settled rule Of law that a rail-
read company must provide and main
tain safe roadbed, and its negligent fail
ure to do so is negligence per sc. But it
cannot be held responsible, in an action
for damages resulting from the wanton
and malicious act of an outsider, unless
it could by the exercise of reasonable