State v. . Snow

Clark, J.: Chapter 298, Acts 1893, “An act to pro- *776 hi bit the sale of spirituous liquor in various localities”, gives, as is usual in such “omnibus” acts, an alphabetical list, “Alexander, Alleghany, Anson, Ashe,” &c., each name followed by a list of places within a certain distance of which the sale or manufacture of liquor is prohibited. The courts take judicial notice.of the political sub-divisions of the State, because they are prescribed by statute, State v. Ray, 97 N. C., 510. Seeing that in this list all the names ate those of counties, when Surry is reached it would be “sticking in the bark” indeed not to construe that part of the Act as referring to Surry county. The power of the Legislature to pass local prohibitory acts is settled in State v. Barringer, 110 N. C., 525, and cases there cited. Nor is there any more" force in the second objection raised by the defendant. The Act (Section 2) forbids the making, selling or disposing of spirituous liquor with a view to remuneration within two miles of Oak Grove Church (and divers other places) in Surry. The special verdict finds that the defendant distilled and sold spirituous liquor within two miles of said Oak Grove Church. The additional fact that said distillery was within the limits of Mt. Airy, an incorporated town, has no bearing, for even had the charter conferred on said town the right to license liquor selling, the Legislature is not debarred from curtailing or withdrawing such right by a subsequent act embracing Mt. Airy within territory wherein the sale or manufacture of spirituous liquor is prohibited. The charter (Private Acts, 1887, Oh. 62, Sections 31 and 35) however, if it had been enacted subsequent, instead of prior to the Act of 1893, would not have abrogated by implication the express prohibition in the Act of 1893. State v. Witter, 107 N. C., 792. Nor does Chapter 107, Private Acts 1895, avail the defendant. That merely empowered the voters of Mt. *777 Airy to decide by an election whether or not the sale of spirituous liquors should be licensed within said municipality. Had the majority of votes at such election been cast in favor of license, the result would have been to except from the operation of the prohibitory act'of 1893 so much of the territory within two miles of Oak Grove Church as was embraced within the limits of Mt. Airy. And even then this exception would not have availed the defendant as such modification would have permitted only the sale but not the making of spirituous liquor within the excepted territory. The special verdict finds however that such election went “in favor of No License by a large majority.” So the provision of the Act of 1893 (Oh. 298) prohibiting the manufacture or sale of spirituous liquor within two miles of Oak Grove Church has received no modification and the court in adjudging the defendant guilty upon the special verdict committed no error. No Error.