Court Opinion

ID: 9808972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:56:57.12739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:09.794322
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
concurring: I concur in the main opinion on the sole ground that the validity of a statute enacted by the General Assembly, declaring certain acts therein defined to be unlawful and imposing punishment therefor, as crimes, that no injunction or equitable proceeding will lie. The State, or a State agency, county or municipality cannot be enjoined from executing its criminal laws. Remedy is never given in equity when it can be obtained by law. To have presented to this Court the constitutionality of the Currituck County Game Law, it must appear that the party who violated the provision of the law was duly charged with the crime, convicted and appeal taken to this Court. Cohen v. Comrs., 77 N. C., 2; Busbee v. Lewis, 85 N. C., 332; Wardens v. Washington, 109 N. C., 21; Scott v. Smith, 121 N. C., 94; Paul v. Washington, 134 N. C., 363; Hargett v. Bell, 134 N. C., 395; S. v. R. R., 145 N. C., 521; Thompson v. Lumberton, 182 N. C., 260; Turner v. New Bern, 187 N. C., 548.
For the reasons given, the constitutionality of the Currituck County Game Law is not passed upon in the present opinion.