Henderson daily dispatch., 1938-11-04
Questions Of
Novel Nature
Before Court
DAILY Dispatch Bureau,
In The Sir Walter Hotel.

Raleigh, Nov. 3.--North Cardinals
Supreme Court will get an unusually
large number of cases s'of first inn
preston" and without previous pre-
cedent in the States Jurisprudence
when it convenes to hear oral argu-
ments in appeals from the fourteenth
judicial district (Mecklenburg and
GastOn).
There are 81 cases on the calendar
five criminal sixteen civil-and al
most half of them differ vastly in pat
tern from the usual quota of causes
coming up from the lower courts.
Two of the criminal cases Estate VS..
0. G. Thomas and State vs. w. J.
Dixon, both from Mecklenburg) are
designed to test the constitutionality
of the 1887 legislation establishing a
North Carolina Real Estate Commits
sion, from which all real estate deal
ers must obtain licenses before doing
business in the SO counties covered
by the act.
In both cases, the superior court
Judge held the act null and void as
unconstitutional after hearing undis-
puted testimony. The State appealed
IN odCn case.
Defendants contend that the statute
is violative of constitutional guaran-
tee against perpetuities and mono
poles, taxation which is not uniform
and as being discriminatory and set
ting up a set of men with exclusive
and separate amoluments.
The State contends the 1887 act is
in strict accord with legitimate use
of the police power and is not a 10
car act, despite the fact that Ga coun-
ties are exempted from it's provisions.
An almost identical statute, enact
ed in 1887, was voided by the Supreme
Court. This statute, however, applied
to only eight counties.
Another of the criminal cases is the
appeal of Chirner Dee and James
Sturgis sentenced to die for killing
Hoke Davis, Dee's landlord, when he
came to collect rent.
Other novel questions the court will
be called on to decide are:
l. Must the driver of an automobile,
on the right hand side of the road,
take reasonable precautions to avoid
collision with a vehicle approaching
on the wrong side of the road when
1T is obvious that the driver of the
approaching vehicle does not intend
to turn and is unconscious of the dan
ger? ON. G. Guthrie VS. A. j. Cooking
Company and ]. e. Thompson, a
Mecklenburg case lin which plaintiff
complaint was tossed out on de-
murrer).
2. Is an employee of a municipal
corporation, who is engaged in the re-
pair of traffic signal or Silent po-
liceman'', performing a governmental
function or is he engaged in perform
ing electrical work as a business
(Mrs. w. M. Hodge VS.. City of Char
lotte' and Herman Black, in which
plaintiff was non-suited on the
grounds the employment was a "gov-
ernmental' function.)
3. Does a municipal corporation
having less than five employees come
within the North Carolina workmen's
compensation act? (Arising from the
Mecklenburg case of Mrs. Addie Rape
VS.. Town of Huntersville, in which
compensation was refused the widow
of the towns only policeman and only
employe who was killed in the per-
Torrance of his duty.)
4. Is it necessary to have an eye
witness to prove that death of an en-
ploye was caused by accident arising
out of and in the course of his en-
ployment, or may this be shown by
circumstantial evidence, (Mecklen
burg case of w. M. Plyler, and others
VS.. Charlotte Country Club in which
plaintiffs were refused compensation
for the death of son, Marcus r
Plyler, a caddy at the Country Clut
who died as the result of an infected
toe, thought to have been injured
while caddying, though there was nj
direct evidence to that effect)
5. Did the City of Charlotte. have
authority to enter into ter year con
tract with the Plant Food Company
for removal of all the sludge from
the Sugaw Creek disposal plant o
the city, (The lower court said
| didn't)