: ;t;ci names, wounds, jo:s, cars
holding generally firm. ' :
livestock arrivals were light, and
at some of - the more northern
ooints bad weather further reduced
haullngs. ' ' - r
' Egg prices at Raleigh declined
one to four cents a dozen the first
of the week with price undertone
teadying toward the week end. ...
- Live pxtoltry trading ' remained
quiet throughout the week, with
only a light volume of chickens
moving and heavy-weight fryers
meeting price discounts selling at
30 to 33 cents. . -,
: Fruit and vegetable shipments In
creased with the movement of win
ter small vegetables very active.
Sweet potato movements also
picked up. :
Vdtrt AdmhtomiM Plot.
. . . . .. . . f u. i.- ik-b
Rudy M. Htnwndtx iwt; ana tusnv nij. ,, ' 7 i'J ii"
: wm and neit-woi lives ma a remarkable parallel. ..Both enlMed l Army frore
iiirocS off rvtanan urv. uran.
yJ, both work ai forklift operator, at Clearfield naval .upply d.po and I bo
;- U, B'incd idmtical can from the Veteran Admlnlrirafloii-admiii-
L.kJ p. t J. om.
ROD & GUN
. By Tom Walker
: : Calling Contest . .You'll have
to decide who was the better man
in uU9 iurney-t:uiiis, vuuwai.
The story of the contest comes
' from Halifax County, where It was
1 - . . IM.J I I. MAMA A. A
- SiagcU.. ine-uumci a iiau buuc vu a
2 fox hunt. During the wanderings of
i their party, a gang of wild turkeys
was flushed. Each made a mental
,,;note of the spot and each made
'plans.
-. Next morning, each man, unbe
. knownst to the other, went back to
i the scene. One began yelping. The
' i i T . nufA
.' i After a spell of this, one decided
i the answering yelps wasn't becom-
he'd move a little closer to the
"turkey".
Hunter No! 2, seeing a movement
in the bushes as No. 1 got in motion,
thoueht he had the turkey - - and
let bo with his gun. The result -
No. 1. caught some shot in the face
which, fortunately, caused . only
slight injuries.
Southern Farm
Market Summary
Southern farmers witnessed
typical holiday market conditions
during trie short New Year's farm
marketing week, with egg prices
declining seasonally, hogs fluctua
ting daily, and other commodities
USE
PllltE
COUGH SYRUP
It's Different
You'll Like It
CIJ lAadam Morrb
. . tt. vilt Rare
I A Seventh Daughter Bora with
Veil, not to be classed with Gyp
sies. Over SO years experience.
A I nil 111
fuse my worn ' wiui
life. Please don't con
that of the ordinary
fortune teller. TJw
truth or nothing. Re
member; a doub'er
finds me superior to
all readers. Reads past,
present and future. Office for
white and colored. Hours 10 a. m.
to 9 p jn. Open dally and Sunday
Permanently located . to traMet
.studio on Wilson highway in front
of Gmr Beat store Take Green
Gablea bus to mv i fice. Look lor
Hsnd Sign, Golds boro. N. CU (adv)
T7, "
lev-" v i - i
itii7Wi
Bbck-Drwiglrt
2
is now tcr.2 coi.ucted for tie 14i,h
year. An aggregate pf $720 and nine
gold, silver, and bronze , medals,
are being offered as prizes... -
-Awards are made for the beat
entries in three divisions essays
written by nigh school -classes, es
says by Individual high school stu
dents, . and essays by Individual
college students. The deadline for
essays to be in the State association
office is April 8.
r Students desiring to enter the
contest s.iuutJ t..i.cj. t i -their
school or their t
association or committee.
i . . -
I v j ki "or
For quick relief from itching caused by
athlete's foot, Kabiet. pimples snd othn i
conditions, use pure, cooung, medicated, b 1
D.D.O. PRESCRIPTION. A doc fcwu..
Gtaaselea nd itainlest. fjooib ttcimfurts
qukkiy calm intense itchhqr- -aa wiri too a
pravesit. or money back. Poa't suftct. Ask your
3ruat today for 0. D. O. -mttn.Pfiu,i.
FOnSflLE
SASH - DOORS
SHEETROCK PAINTS
DRAIN TILE
TERRA COTTA PI?t 1
GLASS -LIME
CEMENT - BRICK
PLASTER
ASPHALT SHINGLES
AND ALL KINDS OF
ROLL ROOFING
Z. J. Carter & Son
Wallace, N. C.
Esi:Ccri!oit
For Ucgroliyi;
Schools Announced
The nation-wide essay contest for
Negro high school and college stu
dents, co-sponsored annually by the
National Tuberculosis Association
ooooooooooooooooooooooootoooooooooc:
Are The Foundations Of Your -
CRUT1BLIHG?. 6
Contact Our Representative
o Francis F. Oakley
BeuIaviUe, N. C.
for a free, but thorough inspection of your damage
and an estimate of the cost cf guaranteed protect
ion for your home. ; ;
CROSS PERNA STOP CO.
- Bonded termite Control -
P. 0. BOX 221 - TEL. 4989 ' - GREENVILLE, C.'
oGooooooooooooQQOoooo ooceoooooooo:
7ti
m
V
JUL
OF DmdIm
Adi
onEnnim
GoMitie
In view of the many inquiries received from the farmers of Du
plin County about the outcome of my tobacco warehouse case I am
printing the decision of the Supreme Court in order that you may
read the full opinion. '
I would like to take this method of expressing my sincere appre
ciation to the farmers of Duplin County for their loyalty and support,
in my behalf and assure them that I will continue to fight to help
the farmers secure the highest possible prices for their crops. It is
my intention to have The Center Brick Warehouse, Elizabeth Street, ,
Clinton, N. C, ready for the 1947 Tobacco Selling Season, and invite
all my farmer friends to bring me a load of tobacco, and help make
Clinton one of the leading tobacco markets in the Eastern Belt
' GUY R.ROSS i s i v
Supreme Court Decision In Ross Warehouse Case.
North Carolina Supreme Court
Town of Clinton
vs.
Guy R. Ross
BARNHILL, J. That defendant's
warehouse is so built that by the
erection of partitions it can be used
for wholesale business establish
ments may be a fact. Even so, there
is nothing in the record to sustain
the finding that he erected the
building for a dual purpose.
When he obtained a permit to
erect a warehouse the designation
of Clinton as a tobacco sales market
was uppermost in the minds of its
people. They, at that time, had
Cause to feel assured their efforts
would be successful. To say that
defendant did not have in mind a
warehouse to be used for the sale
of leaf tobacco would seem to beg
the question.
G. S. 160-179 is not a statute of
general application. It is a part of
our Zoning Act, G. S. Chap. 160,
Art. 14, and authorizes a suit in
equity to restrain the erection,
maintenance, or repair of any build
ing, structure, or land used "in
violation of this article or of any
ordinance or other regulation made
under authority conferred thereby."
It has no application here.
Plaintiff does not plead the zon
ing ordinance of the town adopted
in April 1946. It pleads the 1945
, ordinance, as amended, and bottoms
its claim to Injunctive relief in its
complaint and in Its evidence
squarely on the contention that de
fendant's intended Violation of that
ordinance constitutes a threat to
' the welfare, peace, and safety of
. the citizens of the town.
- In any event, on the facts here -presented,
the zoning, ordinance
forms no basis for equitable re-.
lief. Defendant's warehouse is in an
Industrial district as defined by it. "
.Tobacco warehouses are not excep- .
' ted, unless by the reference In Sec.
19 thereof which provides: W,
"This ordinance shall not be con'
s trued as amending or repealing in .
f- any respect the tobacco warehouse j
ordinance enacted by the Board of.
Commissioners on the 5th day of
June 1945, as amended." ' V '
If we concede that this provision '
stffv'fnt to 8'?1 tobacco ware- .
f ! '
which may not be conducted in said
district "until and unless the loca
tion of such use shall have been ap
proved by the Board of Commiss
ioners," a provision of doubtful va
lidity, Sec. 7, then we are met by
Sec. 8 of that ordinance which re
lates to nonconforming uses and
provides that: .
"The lawful use of a building or
premises existing at the time of the
adoption of this ordinance may be
continued although such use' does
not conform with the provisions of
this ordinance . . . " .
The charter of plaintiff munici
pality, Chap. 115, P. L. Ex. Sess.
1913, does not confer upon it the
power to prohibit the maintenance
of warehouses of the type here in
volved. Section 43(24) of said Act
confers authority "To establish
markets and market places, and
provide for the government and
regulation thereof." However, the
power to regulate thus conferred
relates to markets, such as the
vegetable and fruit market, estab
lished and maintained by the town.
The Act likewise confers autho-'
rity to abate nuisances and to regu
late certain specified , businesses
and trades; to control the sale of
named commodities; and to direct
the location of slaughter houses and
certain other buildings. Neither
tobacco sales warehouses nor the
sale of leaf tobacco is included.
'Defendant's warehouse is not lo
cated in the fire district of the
town. Hence whatever - power it
may have to regulate or prohibit
any building within that area or
. to enjoin the continued use thereof ,
does not pertain to the business,
the operation of which it now seeks :
to enjoin. ' i f if ''
So then, there is no special autho
rity conferred upon the plaintiff, by
its charter which may be consti
tuted to vest power in K to resort
to equity for aid in enforcing its -ordinances.
. ' -
Its anamal cus position in seeking '
the aid of equity in the enforcement '
of Its own ordinance can be main- -
" into court as any o'her litigant with
no distinction drawn In its favor. ;
The inquiry is. as it is in cases of
an individual seeking the aid of"
''the strong arm of equity," v bet her '
tlie facts prr-"!.; -1 ,." " ' ' i
tained, if at all, only under recog
nized general principles controlling
the exercise of equity jurisdiction.
On this question the plaintiff comes.'
of the interference of equity for the
protection of rights cognizable by
equity.
The general welfare is the prime
objective of government and the
right of the people to the protect
ion of the public health, morals,
and safety is the supreme law of
the land, to which the right of
private ownership of property must,
yield. However, in the enTorccment
of this right, equity acts within the
bounds of, and in accord with, gen
erally recognized principles.
The object of equity is to sup
ply the deficiencies of the law, and
so it is axiomatic that equity will
not intervene so long as there is an
adequate remedy at law.
Likewise, it will not exercise its
preventive powers for the purpose 1
of enforcing the criminal law by re-"
straining criminal acts.
The fact that the criminal statute
is not properly enforced, or that it
may be difficult to obtain a con
viction, or the punishment pre
scribed is inadequate, does not fur
nish a sufficient reason for assum
ing jurisdiction to enjoin criminal
acts, v' y-6,: '":'.:.:')
Inadequacy of remedy by prose
cution at law is grounds for enjoin-
ing criminal acts only when such
acts threaten irreparable injury to
property or to the rights of the pub
lic. -. When an offense is created by
statute, not existing at common law,
and the penalty for its violation is
prescribed by the same statute, the -particular,
remedy thus prescribed
must alone . be pursued, for the . '
mention of the particular remedy -makes
the latter exclusive, i- ' -i .
Conversely equity will: exercise
its: preventive powers I, by xe -straining:.
. ''':'.:d
. (1) The irremediable injury or ,
threatened injury to or destruction '
of property rights. - . ?
; 2) The maintenance, of a public
or private nuisance where the pub
lic welfare' or property rights are
injuriously affected. '
(3) The r- '-'tennnce of a 1'' I
nees or ' ' r- n f"
herent in the manner of its oper
ation which coiistitutes a threat to
the general welfare, health, morals,
: or safety of tha community,
But the nature of the business
or manner of operation must bear,
' some definite and substantial re
lation to public health, morals, safe
ty, or welfare and oftentimes this
is to be determined In the light of
the location and surroundings. That
which is harmless in an Industrial
area may be unsafe or injurious in
a thickly-settled residential district.
The right to restrain does not
exist unless the business is inher
ently injurious to the public health,
. . safety, or morals, or has a tenden-,
. cy in that direction. There must be
something in the methods employed
which renders it lnjurions to the
public. It is not enough that it ser-.
lously interferes with the business
of others. . x
Municipalities cannot interfere
with the lawful use of property for
a lawful purpose. -i
"To justify an interference with'
an enjoyment of private property,
two facts must be established: first,
that the property, either in itsself
or in the manner of using it, is a
nuisance; and second, that the in
terference does not extend beyond
what is necessary to correct the
evil."
Applying these general principles
controlling equity jurisdiction to
the facts appearing on this record,
we are constrained to hold that ,
plaintiff has failed to make out a .
case for injunctive relief. - - . ' t
, A tobacco sales, warehouse is a -i
lawful enterprise and the medium
1 through which the farmers of the
State market one of its largest In-,
come-producing crops. It appears,
throughout the tobacco belts of
- this and other. States." In no sense
. is it a public or private nuisance.
' The court below found that the
. warehouse of defendant is operated
,' In the same manner as are other.
. warehouses of like kind throughout
the tobacco belt When so conduct
ed there is nothing inherent in the
manner of operation which consti-
tutes a menace to the general wel
fare, her''h, ir' 1i, or s " ' f
C'P C''""'. " "7.
. Hence its location and surroundings
- do not render the manner of oper
, ation, otherwise lawful, a threat to
, the general welfare. . .
. There "is no tillogatlon, proof or
- finding that defendant has commit
ted' a purpresture or that he owns
or operates any vehicles on the pub-
: lie streets of the town-or otherwise
contributes to the congestion of
' traffic about which it ' complains.
-Plaintiff bottoms It? case upon the
. contention thr.t defendant's custo
mers are -so numerous, that" while
s traveling on the ; public streets,
where they have a right to be, in
going to and , from his place of
: business, they congest, and s;t times
completely block, the streets adja
cent to the warehouse; In making
.' . this contention it seems to overlook
: the fact that this is only one of the
contributing factors added to the
tremendous traffic produced by
customers of businesses if con
. ducts and the travel of the general
,' public "which produces the undesir
able result . - ,
: Be that as it may, the complaint
'. is not directed to any condition in-'
. herent in the operation of the ware
. house or to any" conduct ; on the
; part of the defendant It relates to
: ', the conduct of those who compose
"-a part of the traveling public. ? .
The municipality has full power
and authority to regulate and con
trol the traffic on its streets. Its in
; ability or unwillingness to do so
. should not be Charged to a private
u owner merely because a great pro
portion of those using the -streets
are going to or from .his place of
business. Certainly a condition thus
. produced by the traveling public,
and not by the defendant forms
no basis for the intervention of a
court of equity,
Plaintiff alleges further that the
continued existence of defendant's '
warehouse as such depreciates the
. value and: restricts the proposed
. sale1 of its adjoining property and .
vthe court below found that "its val
ue will likely be depreciated as well
as the value of other property in
close proximity thereto should the
defendant operate his tobacco wnre-
We may not always choose our.
- neighbors and so, in the give and
take of life, our neighbor is one of
the things wa must "take." So long .
- as her conducts a lawful business,
in a lawful manner, and there is
nothing inherent in the manner of
operation which, under the sur-,
rounding circumstances, is obnox
ious or which wrongfully Invades"-,
the property, rights of others his
undesirability is damnum absque
injuria. 1 !
Plaintiff cites and relics on a
lineof cases represented by Fay-. :
; etteville vs Distributing Co., supra,
, In the Fayetteville case the defend
ant was-preparing to store on its
' premises, located in the fire district '
, of plaintiff municipality, a large
quantity of a highly combustible
substance. It was its action, and
not the action of its customers,
" which created the hazard to the
public safety. In Turner vs New
Bern, 187 NC 541, 122 SE 469, the
plaintiff was seeking to restrain.
t the enforcement of an ordinance
t which prohibited the maintenance
of lumber yards . and ..loading v
whstes or docks in a thickly-set,
tied residential section. There the '
location and surrounding conditions
rendered objectionable that which .
was otherwise' lawful. Other clta- -.
tlons are similarly distinguishable.
; -. . ' - - .
. , Defendant stressfully- contends .
that the 1945 ordinance, as amend- ,
: ed, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and ;
' ultra vires.. Ordinarily that is a J
. question for the criminal courts to :
'. decide. A court of equity will enter
tain it only when necessary to pre
vent irreparable loss to property '
or property rights.- : Since in no
event is plaintiff entitled to equi- '
.table relief, we pass the question
without decision. -
For the rf"os V e j