Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

216 N.C. 161

4 S.E.2d 316

State v. . Freeman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 20, 1939

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1939-09-20

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1948

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1939-09-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stacy, C. J.

¶1 The motions in arrest of judgment for uncertainty in the warrants and failure to charge the defendants with the commission of a crime must be allowed on authority of S. v. Julian, 214 N. C., 574, 200 S. E., 24; S. v. Williams, 210 N. C., 159, 185 S. E., 661; and S. v. Ingle, 214 N. C., 276, 199 S. E., 10.

¶2 Our attention has been called to no statute, county or city ordinance, requiring a license, to “engage in the business of employing peddlers.” Even if it be conceded, as the State contends, that under ch. 127, Public Laws 1937 (Revenue Act), any person, firm or corporation “employing the services of another as a peddler” is made liable for the peddler’s tax therein imposed, it does not follow that the employer must obtain a license as well as the peddler employed. S. v. Smith, 211 N. C., 206, 189 S. E., 509.

¶3 Whether the defendants would be liable for failure to procure licenses for peddlers employed by them is not presented by the record.

¶4 Judgment arrested.

/216/nc/161 · .json · Public domain