State v. Correll

James, J. Tbis cause was originally instituted in tbe Mecklenburg County Recorder’s. Court upon a warrant charging tbe defendant with operating a motor vehicle upon tbe public highways of North Carolina after having bad bis driver’s license revoked, in violation of Gr.S. 20-28. *697 Tbe cause came on for bearing before tbe Judge of tbe County Recorder’s Court of Mecklenburg County on 30 June, 1950, at wbicb time tbe defendant demanded a trial by jury, whereupon tbe case was sent to tbe Superior Court of Mecklenburg County to be tried by a jury. Tbe cause came on for bearing at tbe regular term of Superior Court for Mecklen-burg County on 10 July, 1950. Tbe defendant entered a plea of not guilty but tbe jury found as its verdict tbat tbe defendant was guilty. Tbe only assignment of error wbicb tbe defendant bas brought forward relates to His Honor’s instruction to tbe jury tbat tbe defendant bad no right to drive bis ear upon tbe highways of North Carolina after bis license bad been revoked and it made no difference what tbe defendant’s intentions were in regard to so doing. G.S. 20-28 provides as follows: “(a) Any person whose operator’s or chauffeur’s license bas been suspended or revoked other than permanently, as provided in this article, 'who shall drive any motor vehicle upon tbe highways of tbe state while such license is suspended or revoked, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $200 or imprisonment in tbe discretion of tbe court, or both such fine and imprisonment . . .” Tbe right to operate a motor vehicle upon tbe public highways of North Carolina is not an unrestricted right but a privilege wbicb can be exercised only in accordance with tbe legislative restrictions fixed thereon. 5 Am. Jur., sec. 756. Tbe defendant did not deny tbat be bad driven bis car upon tbe highways after bis license bad been revoked but contended tbat be was attempting to get bis car back home from a garage where it bad been left. But tbe specific performance of an act wbicb is expressly forbidden by statute constitutes tbe offense itself and we are of tbe opinion, and so bold, tbat tbe instruction of bis Honor to the jury was proper. S. v. Lattimore, 201 N.C. 32, 158 S.E. 741; S. v. Perley, 173 N.C. 783, 92 S.E. 504, and cases cited. Tbe judgment of tbe court below is Affirmed.