The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-04-23
THE CITY WINS IN
SUPREME COURT
A Righteous Opinion Handed
Down in Liquor Cases,
END OF A LONG FIGHT
Saves Raleigh From Being Compelled
to Refund About $4,000.
THE LAW THAT CAUSED THE TROUBLE
The Warm Fight Recalled in the Lower Court
Between City Attorney Watson and tx
Governor Russell and Attorney
Best For Plaintiffs.

refund the liquor license taves collected
from persons selling liquor within a mile
of the city limits. The Supreme Court
yesterday reversed the judgment of the
lower court. and thus the little bill that
was so smoothly and blithely passed
through the last Legislature, fails of its
purpose This opinion of the Supreme
Court saves the city $4,000.
In the argument before the Supreme
Court the city in its answer contended
that as a matter of law there was 10
legal obligation it to refund these
taxes, for
1. 1t appeared that defendant was en-
powered by its charters to impose and
collect sal dvarious sums of money from
plaintiff as a license tax, and that the
same being lawfully imposed and col
lected by this defendant, chapter 327 OF
the laws of 1901, gave plaintiff no cause
of action.
g 1t appeared that plaintiff paid said
sums of money freely, willingly and vol
UNFAIRLY, and without compulson on the
part of defendant; obtaining therefor
defendants permission to sell spirituous,
vinous and malt liquors, from which
business plaintiff obtained a livelihood
and acquired property
3. 1t appeared that plaintiffs cause OF
action, if any he ever had, was barred
by the statutes of limit ations before the
passage of said act of the General As
sembly, or the bringing of this action.
And the argument of the city attorney
in the Supreme Court to sustain these
pleas, was. briefly stated as follows
1. That the defendant was authorized
to collect the license tax sued for by
plaintiffs; and that plaintiff cannot re-
cover for
(a) 15That the act Of the General AS
sembly of North Carolina of 1901, under
which plaintiff sues, has no application
to cases where the license was collected
by authority of law.
OBJ That if the act does refer to cases
where the license tax was collected by
authority of law. then the same is I'M
+, constitutional for that: l. 1t appropriates
public money to private use, and 2. 1t
attempts to enforce claim against a
municipal corporation, not enforceableat
law, that is without either moral, equt-
able or meritorious consideration.
2. That if defendant was not empow-
cred by law to collect the license taxes
sue dior, the plaintiff was given an action
therefor by the laws of North Carolina !;
that plaintiffs cause of action was
barred by the statute of limitations be-
fore the enactment Of the statute Of
1901; and that the right to plead said
bar as a defence to this action, was q
vested right of which the Legislature
could not deprive this defendant.
The whole matter started by a bill
passed by the Legislature of 1901, chap
ter 327 of the acts, which provides
THAT where any town, city or munich
pality has collected a tax or assessment
upon property, real or personal, outside
of the actual charter or corporate limits
of such town. city OR municipality, OF
where any town, city or municipality
shall have collected a privilege tax or
assessment upon any person or persons
doing business outside of the actual
charter or incorporate limits of boun-
daries, as aforesaid, upon such business
said town, city or municipality shall re-
fund TO such person or persons, or their
proper representative the amount of such
tax or assessment
This was an act passed under the title
certain
Ta2sPayers,' and most of the members
of the Legislature thought it was a local
matter. After the adjournment it was
found tina 1.-THE act was very wide and
sweeping in its terms. Under this act
certain people who had been engaged in
the selling of liquor outside of the cor
porate limits of the city, and within a
mile of the same, demanded of the
Board of Aldermen the repayment OF
such sums as they had paid to the city
fer license to sell liquor. These de-
mands ran back for about % years, and
amounted to about $4,000. Under the
advice OF their attorney, the Board re-
fused to pay these demands.
The various claimants brought suit in
April, 1901, term of Superior Court The
city asked for time to answer, and the
attorneys for Plaintiff, Ex-Governor Rus
sell ard f. J. Best, insisted that the city
should answer at that term, or that they
should have judgment by default. The
city attorney then asked the clerk tC
read the names of the sureties on The
prosecution bond, and il was found thai
tho bond was signed by the plaintiffs
by T.. J. Best. attorney" and ID. l.
Russell as surety. The city attorney
then made the point that under the rules
OF practice these gentlemen could no
Get as attorneys for the plaintiffs. Gov
ornor Russell asked to see the rule
which the city attorney did. The cour
held wit hthc city attorney on this point
then Mr. Best made the point that h
did not sign the bond as surety, and the
city attorney said that he either signed
this bond as surety or executed it fol
his client and he demanded his power
OF attorney to execute the bond fol
them, and this was not forthcoming
After some parleying the city attorne,
agreed to withdraw his objection to The
attorneys appearing in the case, on con.
dtion that he was to have time to an
swcr. This was given ard the CASE
came up for argument at the October
term, 1901, of the court. The case wa.