The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-12-10
DISSENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE.


made criminal offence in Sec Z
But the court we'll aaSs. in the opinion
{ In this case w hat practical differ
ence can IL max q whether the peuA
| provision is ia the first or fourth ~~c.
ton OF the act Does not the tattug
section distinctly refer "a the former
the same as IL IL had been Incorporated
with it," And OF course exactly tins
same is true OF the criminal provision
| OF the act When IL made any on.
indictable for selling ticket at a rate
higher than that named in the iaw this
statute thereby made indiCtahle ans
one who sh ould procure or conpe
such person To sell tickets at the for
hidden rates Agents conductor
and employees" are named only be
cause they are those who usually sci
tickets but the use OF these woTds i
not an implied exemption from habll.
ity OF those who procure or force thf
persons named To break the law-and
the evidence and admission mere i
that the defendant company issued IL
orders to the defendant Green and its
other agents TO DO that very thing. and
70 sell tickets at price forbidden by
law.
The contention that the legislature
has exempted the defendant company
from that liability which rests now
and has always rested. upon all other
who aid in or procure others 10 break
the law. Is placed upon the sole ground
that the same chapter section 1
gives to any one who shall be forced
to buy a ticket At ar illegal rate. a
civil action for a specified sum But
that is only an additional remedy e
aid in the enforcement OF the law. II
1t rot Incompatible I'm any way with
the States enforcement Of the law bS
its own process in the criminal courts
Ii is not unusual indeed IL Is very FIRE
| - n tFF ln kat 4. .-.e1
a civil remedy and criminal one In
deed Rev. 1858 expressly provide,
Where the violation OF Il right ad-
mits Of both a civil and crimina
remedy. the right to prosecute the on'
| is not merged in the other
This recognizes that both remediei
may co-exist. and that one does no
exclude the other. The State might
co-existent with It's criminal process
have given to its own officers the righ
to sue for a civil penalty. But the leg
islature simply thought il better policy
to give the penalty to the citizen. re,
serving II itself it's criminal process
to enforce observance of It's law j
could not have thought that by giving
the citizen civil remedy IL was abdi-
eating It's power. a power IL has In rc.
gard to every one, to enforce the OBJ
servancc Of its laws by it's crimiua
courts Had such an unprecedcnted
conceivable motive and would have
been clearly expressed
But 1t is said that state Y. SnuRgs
85 \. O 54i has had that effect and
therefore that the legislature did sc
exempt the defendant company. ever
If 'unbeknownst" &c itself II State
v Snuggs can have that construction
then II should follow the fate OF Hoke
V Henderson: Barksdale V. Commits
sioners and hundreds Of other cases in
which this court has held that pre-
ceding decisions were not rendered Ey
inffallibIe judges.
But In my humble judgment state
V. Snuggs has not the remotest appli-
cation To this case. In that case the
Legislature forbade the issuing or a
marriage license without proper In
qniry The statute did not make Il q
Inisdemeanor and the court simply 20
held. IT did not hold. and could MOI
have held. that II afcriminal proceed
ing had been added II would have
| been void because the civil remedy
had been given to the citizen. IT.
every case without exception. cited Z
sustain sSnuggs' case, there vas Gun
like this case) no provision making the
act indiCtable. In this case the ciy1
remedy Is given TO the citizen and also
the selling the ticket is expressly ma 1s
misden eanor in the gem The
agent or conductor sells the ticket or
collects fare, in excess OF the legal
rate. then by imm emorial and hitherto
uncontroverted law. any person or coz
poration who procures the agen- 80
conductor 10 do the Illegal act. or
knowingly receives the fruits Of II ard
| orders IT; repetition, Is equally indict-
able.
Most certainly the legislature did
10
statute cannot be construed 10 in
tend, that the enforcement or the Ia *
against this great and powerful cor
poration should be left 70 the cha nee
and haphazard Of a civil action BY
citizens for penalty. when il ls well
known that with unlimited resources
the defendant company would make
each case cost the venturesorne plain
tiffs more in lawyers fees. witness
tick cts. delay, vexation and expense
than the recovery would amount tc
The State did not intend to reservs
To itself the enforcement of the Law
only against the agents Lnd conduc-
tors, who have no money u spend ir
lawsuits. while showing off on casua
or possible plaintiffs the sole enforce
ment of rhe law against the great art
wealthy corporation itself The stat
Of North Carolina has never yet thu.
shirked & contest nor placed the bur
den and brunt Of the execution or II,
laws upor individual patriotism.
The rem edy by civil action given II
the citizen makes the company liabie
for what the agent has done. whetaci
the company ordered II done or not
This is a principle Of civil liability
But the company is not .ndictabIe fgI
what the agent did Con which alone
the civil action is based) but on wha,
| it did itself. on the priprlDIe oil a'
the Garden Of Eden. that ne who aids
or influences another 10 cog.rlI'
crime. is himself guilty Of ahc crime
In state .Snuggs there was no rnisde.
meanor. Here there is. and The Ie-
fendant company Is the D-1motcr sinC
sole cause of its commission.
AS wa well said 3y Walker. II
State Y. Hicks. 143 y. q f13 h"uci
this law il "of n penal nstu.e AMI u
be construed strictly. yet IL must a