Court Opinion

ID: 9808850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:52:36.16+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:08.832283
License: Public Domain

Hotce, J.
Tbe statutes controlling tbe question in this State have not, thus far, prohibited tbe sale of “cider in any quantity by tbe manufacturer from fruit's grown on bis own lands within tbe State of North Carolina.” This exception, contained in tbe Laws of 1908, Extra Session, chapter 71, appears in tbe same or substantially similar terms in chapter 35, Laws 1911, sec. 3, tbe same being entitled “An act to prohibit tbe sale of near-beer, beerine, and other like drinks,” and chapter 44, Laws 1913, commonly known as tbe Search and Seizure Laws, excepts from tbe operative section of tbe act “wines and ciders in any quantity manufactured from fruits grown on tbe premises of tbe person in whose possession they may be.” Chapter 97, Laws 1915, was passed primarily to regulate tbe shipments of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, and seems to contain no provision applicable to tbe facts of this record. It thus appears to be tbe policy and express • purpose of our legislators to except from tbe operation of tbe prohibition laws tbe sale of cider by tbe manufacturer, when made from fruits grown upon bis lands within the State, “and being allowed to sell in a.ny quantity and in any place,” it is the evident purpose and meaning of tbe law that such sales may be effected by any of tbe ordinary methods by which an owner is allowed to dispose of his property.
This right to sell property, and either by an agent or employee, is one of tbe incidents of ownership, and should not be withdrawn or *975restricted unless tbe statute clearly requires it. Nance v. R. R., 149 N. C., 366 (2d Ed.); Black on Interpretation of Laws, p. 451.
Even in case of intoxicating liquors, which' can only be sold by license duly issued, the license is held to protect the employees and agents of the proprietor selling at the place where the license designates. Black on Intoxicating Liquors, sec. 132, citing Rungen v. State, 52 Ind., 320, and other cases. And these excepting provisions, withdrawing cider from the effect and policy of the prohibition laws and, as stated, allowing sales in any quantity and any place, should, by correct construction, operate to allow such sales by the employees and agents of the manufacturer when it is shown, as in this case, that the parties are acting bona fide and the cider is made from fruit grown on the manufacturer’s lands.
Whether this exception should continue to prevail because, at a minimum risk, it allows landowners to dispose of their fruit which would otherwise, year by year, rot on their lands and be altogether lost, or whether it should be repealed because it may unduly afford methods of evading the purpose and policy of our prohibition laws, these are matters entirely for legislative consideration, and may not be allowed to affect the construction of the present statutes, which, in our opinion, are clearly designed and framed to enable a manufacturer of cider from his own fruit to dispose of it, and to do so by ordinary methods, in any quantity and at any place.
There is no error in the ruling of the court, and the proceedings 'below are affirmed.
No error.