French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1916-1919, 1917-03-01
TO PUT COUNTRY IN STATE OF
ARMED NEUTRALITY ASKED.
CERTAIN MUNICIPAL BOND
ISSUES WITHOUT POPULAR VOTE
Suspended Judgments to be Invoked
Only in Open Court Other
Recent Decisions.
(By Burgegg & Joyner.l

The Supreme Court handed down, i
Wednesday afternoon, a decision which /
is Of great interest to the towns and |
cities of tie State. In the case OF
Swindell VS.. the Town of BelThaven, |
Beaufort County, the decision of the
lower court was rmed and the Su-
preme court held that a city or town
may issue bonds for the construction
of water works. electric lights and
sewerage systems, without having SUB
mitted the question to pouIar votA
This decision has an important effect
! upon a legislative act of 1911 that pro-
/ yided specifically that municipalities
might issue bonds for public utilities,
! but that the bond issue, must be sub
n1tted to a vote of the people. The
Edecision rests upon a general legisIa-
! tive Act of 1915 that authorizes cities
and towns to issue bonds for necessary
purposes, without a popular vote. The
The decision, therefore, means that
water works electric lights and sew
erage are municipal necessaries and,
therefore, the act Of 1915 as to these
Improvements modifies the act of 1911.
The court states through Judge Brown,
But it is contended that the words
i necessary expenses in the act of 1915
refer only to the current annual ex-
! pense of conducting the municinaI
government and do not embrace such
expenditures as to those made for eIec-
tic lights, water works and sewerage
iGnese being here luxuries. They
I might have been so regarded many
! years ago in their incipiency: but the
luxuries OF one generation have be
come the necessities of another. What
would have suf1ced for odr ancestors
would not begin to meet the needs. of
: stEle twentieth century. These things
Zaturally follow in the wake of an adA
rl.ncing century. These things natur-
" follow in the wake of an advanc-
:1i.5 CIVILIZATION -necessary-expe DO
4@& mean expenses. for purposes alb
efotately necessary to the existence Of
G munisipality." @ =
In the case of the State VS.. Ed BUR-
nette, appeaed from FasQuotank the
: lpreme court mas handed dogp "a
other decision of much interest to mu-
inequalities. as wen as to the trial JUS
t1ce of every degree in the State Bur
nette was convicted of having liquos
in his possession for sale and was SEN
fenced to- a term on the roads. Sen
tence was suspended on condition that
he appear every three months to show
lgood behavior. At the end of the first
three months, he met the trial Justice
, on the street and was told that "it was
) all right, and he could CO." Thinking
! that this excused him from any further
, appearance, he failed to appear at the
, end of the second three months, and
soon thereafter was arrested, taken to
the office of the trial justice and or
, dered stO Jail to serve out the original
, Gentence, which was now put in force.
> He brought a writ of habeas corpus
and the denial thereof was brought to
the Supreme court for review. That
court holds that the trial justice had
no power to declare that the condi-
tions of the suspension had not been
fulfilled and to put into operation the
= sentence, without first having called a
Irregular sessionsof his court and having
given the defendant an opportunity to
be heard in his Defense Justice
: Brown, writing the opinion, says: "The
> court must act as a court and not
. merely the individual which is appoint
:, ed by law to preside over it. The de-
;; fendant was entitled to public hear
: ing in the court and this he has not
= had
= 3 One of the most interesting points
y of this case is that the court affirmE
= the power of a justice to suspend &
= sentence. The Supreme court of the
: United States has recently decided
', (Ex' parte U. S., Petitioner, u. S. Su
. preme Court, October Term 9916, No
- II Originally that federal Judge has
no power to suspend sentence. The
state courts have differed on this
point; but it is the North Carolina rule
. that our judges do have inherent poY
: er to suspend a sentence, it remaining
= for the present case to qualify the
o"i power of putting the sentence into op
: Grafton again.
> State VS.. Coon McGlammery, appeal
ID from Wilkes county, presents 80
;. unusual situation of a court refusing
= to agree with counsel in the concession
: of a case to the opponent. The de
: fendant. negro, the only one in hi:
: section, was indicted or fornicatioI
z and adultery with a white woman AM
= was convicted upon circumstantia1 eyi
|" 'dence. He appealed and counsel 70
g the state. in their brief on the appeal
expressly admit that, in their opinion
I the evidence is not sufficient to supper
: ,the conviction and therefore. do 10
: ask. the Supreme court to sustain it
:. But the court refuses to agree witt
Is this opinion of counsel and odlhs that
d in its opinion, the evidence is sufd
icient to sustain conviction. Thu
the acton of the court went beyon'
= what was desired by counsel for eithe
side of the case.
Mann VS.. Mann. appeal from Hyd
q Counyt, decides a question of interes