Case Name: JONES v. DUNCAN
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1900-10-30
Citations: 127 N.C. 118
Docket Number: 
Parties: JONES v. DUNCAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
JONES v. DUNCAN.
(October 30, 1900.)
Constitutional Law — Ordinances—Live Stock — Discrimina^ tion — Gities and Towns.
It is not unconstitutional for .tbe legislature to prescribe that resident owners of stock found running at large in a town shall pay a higher penalty than non-residents.
Civil AotioN by W. J. Jones against W. H. Duncan, beard by Judge Frederick Moore, upon an agreed state of facts, at Fall Term, 1899, of HabNett Superior Court. From judgment for defendant, tbe plaintiff appealed.
F. P. Jones, for plaintiff.
Simmons j Pou é Ward, for defendant.

Opinion:
Faieoloth, C. J.
Tbis is claim and delivery by tbe plaintiff to recover bis bogs, wbicb were seized and impounded by tbe defendant, marshal of tbe town of Dunn, in Harnett County. Tbe bogs bad strayed into tbe streets of said town. Tbe town was incorporated under Private Laws 1889, c. 191, and amendments thereto. Thé Board of Town Commissioners declared by an ordinance that bogs, etc., running at large in tbe town, were nuisances, and imposed a fine on tbe owners who should wilfully permit any such animals at large within tbe town, providing that owners of stock without tbe limits of tbe town, and within one mile thereof, should pay a smaller penalty than those within, and those more than one mile distant from tbe corporate limits would not be charged anything for tbe first three times. Tbe only question presented, or so intended, is- whether tbe said Commissioners bad authority to enact tbe ordinance, or whether it is void. Tbis question has been heretofore considered and settled. In State v. Tweedy, 115 N. C., 704, it was held, -upon previous decisions, that it was competent for the town to pass such an ordinance, and to prescribe a penalty for its violation, whether the owner of the stock should live inside or outside of the corporate limits. In Broadfoot v. Town of Fayetteville, 121 N. C., 418, it was held that the Legislature could discriminate, on this subject, between resident and non-resident owners of stock, as such discrimination is not forbidden by the Constitution of the State, or of the United States.
Affirmed.