Court Opinion

ID: 9856619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:52:18.021566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:06.402842
License: Public Domain

Higgins, J.,
concurring: Judge Copeland, by finding of fact No. 3, determined that Mr. Lee, a member of the Salem Baptist Church and one of its five Trustees, drew the plans and specifications for the construction of a building on the church’s property to be used in its church program. He made no charge for drawing the plans which complied with the building code and met all safety standards.
At the time (1955) Mr. Lee made the plans for the erection of the building on the church property, he held title as one of five trustees. The Architects’ Licensing Act exempted him from the licensing requirement. “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed ,to prevent any person from making plans or data for buildings for himself.” G.S. 83-12. By the 1957 amendment the word person was stricken and the word individual was substituted. Webster’s Third International Dictionary, at p. 1686, defines “person”: “(6) A human being, a body of persons, or a corporation, partnership or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.” Commissioners v. Cooperative, 246 Mass. 235, 140 N.E. 811. The word “person” as above defined was broad enough to include “the body of persons” (Salem Baptist Church) “recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties,” to the end that one of the members could be designated by the body to prepare its building plans. The provision “for himself” includes “for herself” or, as in this case, “for itself,” referring to the church. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1299.
The Architects’ Licensing Act contains highly penal provisions. Drawing plans without an architect’s license is made a misdemeanor for which punishment shall be by fine of not less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00, or imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both fine and imprisonment. Each day constitutes a separate offense. The Act, being penal, must be strictly construed in favor of the exemption, and against the implication of criminal intent and against the infliction of the penalty. State v. Garrett, 263 N.C. 773, 140 S.E. 2d 315; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714, 86 S.E. 2d 585; State v. Scoggin, 236 N.C. 1, 72 S.E. 2d 97; Hilgreen v. Cleaners & Tailors, Inc., 225 N.C. 656, 36 S.E. 2d 252. The General Assembly evidently construed the word “person” as used in the original Act to mean something different from “in*614dividual.” Otherwise, by making the substitution the lawmakers were merely spinning their wheels.
I am unwilling to join the majority in striking out conclusion of law No. 1. By doing so the Court in effect is holding that Mr. Lee was guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to punishment for each day he worked on the plans. If the Court’s decision is correct, only the statute of limitations offers refuge from prosecution. I think Mr. Lee on this record has a better defense than the one the Court allows him — laches on the part of the plaintiff in bringing this action.
RodmaN, J., concurs in this opinion.