The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-03-13

solely for the jury and their finding is not
renewable.
Where the contention of the solicitor
IN his argument upon trial of an indict-
ment for murder was not objected to by
prisoners counsel during the argument
of the solicitor, objection cannot after
wards be made to the courts restating the
same when summing up States conten-
ton IN charging the jury.
STATE, appellant VS.. EDWARDS. From
Craven. No error.
Section 2740 of The Code imposing fine
for giving away or selling, except for med
ical purposes, etc, any liquor within five
miles of polling place on election day,
was repealed and re-enacted in the Elec-
ton Law of 1895, and also re-enacted in
the Election Laws of 1899 and 1900; the
Election Law of 1901 (Chapter SO Section
S6) and Section rs of Chapter SO Laws
1901 provides that "any person who shall
give away any intoxicating liquors ex-
cept for medical purposes and upon pre-
scription of a practicing physician, at any
place within five niles of the polling place
on election day shall be fined, etc. the
words COR SELF being omitted from said
section.
Held, that by virtue of Sections IS and
Sc of Chapter 50 Laws 1901, sale OF spir-
ituous liquors on election day by one
having license to retail is not unlawful.
PAUL, appellant VS.. TOWN OF WASH
INGTON, appellant. No error.
The validity of town ordinance cannot
be tested by injunction.
Where a town is vested with authority
in its charter to regulate, control, tax,
license or prevent the sale of liquor with
in its limits, the courts have power to
decide whether it's ordinances regulating
the sale of liquor are oppressive, vexa-
tious or unreasonable.
Liquor being regarded as an evil in it.
self and an enemy of civilization the
courts in passing upon the validity of laws
regulating or restricting its sale, will not
be guided by the rule applicable to re-
strictions upon business which is useful
or beneficial to mankind.
The regislation regulating, controlling
and suppressing the liquor traffic has been
generally approved by the Supreme Court.
Bailey vs. Raleigh, $50 N. c. 209; State
vs.. Ray, 131 n. c 1877.
The town of Washington being vested
with authority in its charter to regulate,
control or prohibit the sale of liquors in
its limits, passed ordinances prohibiting
storm doors, partitions, screens, blinds
and stained glass panelled, one glass to
the shutter, the bottom panel not more
than four feet from the level OF the side
walk, the glass to be kept clean of dirt
4l,4 - Loo,
should be more than fifty feet from the
front door and that all liquor should be
served and drunk at the counter; that
there should be no back door, side door,
trap door or stairway to or exit from
saloon except for use by the employees
thereof, and that every saloon should
keep a gas or electric light over it's front
door each night through the period of
darkness, and that no saloon should be
entered, opened, kept open or occupied
by any person from o'clock Saturday
night till o'clock Monday morning; and
prohibiting billiard tables, ten pin alleys,
gambling tables and all games in any sa-
loon or room connected Herewith, also
restaurants or eating houses in connec-
ton Herewith; and prohibiting the Civ
ing away or selling of any food in any sa-
loon or room connected herewith; and
imposing a fine of fifty dollars for VIC
lation of any of these ordinances, each
day the violation was continued to con-
Gtute separate offense and work for
fefture of the license to sell liquor.
Held not to be oppressive, unreasonable
or veXat:ous.
Montgomery j., who delivered the opin-
ion, is in sympathy with the contention
of the plaintiffs counsel that the validity
of town ordinance may be tested by in
junction when it appears that the citizens
has not an adequate remedy at law for
damages accruing to him by an enforce
ment of the ordinance, but majority of
the court dissent from this view.
Douglas j. concurs with Montgomery
j. that the ordinance may be tested by
injunction when there is no adequate rem
edy at law, but dissents from the ruling
that the ordinances were not unreasonable
and veXatious.