State v. Scoggins

Decision Date06 November 1890
Citation12 S.E. 59,107 N.C. 959
PartiesSTATE v. SCOGGINS et al.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

This was an indictment, under section 1077 of the Code, for selling liquor to a minor, tried at the June term, 1890, of the superior court of Durham county, before WOMACK, J. The defendant appealed. Albert Rigsbee, witness for the state testified: "I am eighteen years old, and unmarried. The defendants sold spirituous liquors at retail in the town of Durham. I never bought liquor from either of them directly. When I wanted a drink I would ask some person of full age if he wanted a drink, and would give him the money outside of the bar, and we would go in together. He would call for the liquor. The defendants would set up two glasses. We would pour out our liquor, and drink, and he (the grown person) would pay for it. I couldn't say how often I have done that in two years, but some two or three times a week. Both defendants would set up the liquor. I would give the money out of doors, and the defendants would know nothing about it." The witness' appearance clearly indicated that he was a minor. The state rested its case, and the defendants introduced no evidence. The solicitor asked his honor to instruct the jury that if they believed the evidence the defendants were guilty. The defendants demurred to the evidence, for that it did not show that both parties participated in any one sale. His honor overruled the defendants' demurrer to the evidence, to which the defendants excepted. His honor charged the jury that if they were fully satisfied that the evidence was true, then the defendants were guilty; to which charge defendants excepted. Verdict of guilty. Sentence pronounced to pay a fine of $20 each, and costs. Appeal by defendants. Errors assigned for failure of his honor to sustain the demurrer and the charge as given.

The Attorney General, for the State.

J. S Manning and R. B. Boone, for defendants.

AVERY J., (after stating the facts as above.)

The witness Rigsbee was only 18 years old, and, in the conduct of their business, all dealers in spirituous liquors are presumed to act with a knowledge of that fact. He had repeatedly, within two years before the finding of the indictment, gone into the room where the defendants, as partners, retailed spirituous liquors, after giving to some adult, who accompanied him to the bar, the money to pay for two drinks, and had seen the defendants set out two glasses in response to a call by his companion for drinks for both and, after the drinks were taken by both, had seen the defendants receive payment for them from the person to whom the witness had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Sims v. First Nat. Bank, Harrison
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1979
    ...of such a threat by the husband. Line v. Blizzard, 70 Ind. 23 (1880); Luna v. Miller, 171 Okl. 260, 42 P.2d 809 (1935); State v. Scoggins, 107 N.C. 959, 12 S.E. 59 (1890); Marston v. Brittenham, supra; Wallach v. Hoexter, supra. See also, Pirtle v. Pirtle, 166 Tenn. 180, 60 S.W.2d 172 (1933......
  • State v. Kittelle
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1892
    ... ... law did not exculpate if in fact the defendant did the act, ... or authorized it to be done, which constituted a breach of ... the law. State v. Wool, 86 N.C. 708; State v ... McBrayer, 98 N.C. 619, 2 S.E. Rep. 755; State v ... Scoggins, 107 N.C. 959, 12 S.E. Rep. 59; State v ... Lawrence, 97 N.C. 492, 2 S.E. Rep ... [15 S.E. 104] ...          367; ... Farrell v. State, 30 Amer. Rep. 614, and numerous ... cases cited in the notes thereto. A principal is prima facie ... liable for the acts of his agents ... ...
  • State v. McLean
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1897
    ... ... law pronounces criminal." State v. Voight, 90 ... N.C. 741. To the like effect are the decisions in State ... v. Kittelle, 110 N.C. 560, 15 S.E. 103; State v ... Downs, 116 N.C. 1064, 21 S.E. 689; State v ... Chisenhall, 106 N.C. 676, 11 S.E. 518; State v ... Scoggins, 107 N.C. 959, 12 S.E. 59. The counsel of ... defendants admitted that it was not necessary, in trial for ... misdemeanors, to allege and prove any specific intent, where ... the act was forbidden by statute, but they insisted that the ... rule did not apply in cases of felony. We cannot, upon ... ...
  • State v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1898
    ... ... intent to do the act which the law pronounces criminal." ... To the like effect are the decisions in State v ... Kittelle, 110 N.C. 560, 15 S.E. 103; State v ... Downs, 116 N.C. 1064, 21 S. E: 689; State v ... Chisenhall, 106 N.C. 676, 11 S.E. 518; State v ... Scoggins, 107 N.C. 959, 12 S.E. 59; State v ... McLean, 121 N.C. 589, 28 S.E. 140. It is to be observed ... that, in the section of the act under which this defendant ... was indicted, neither the word "intent," nor any ... word synonymous with the word "intent," was used ... The act simply ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT