Freeman v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 519
| Decision Date | 28 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 519,519 |
| Citation | 141 S.E.2d 499,264 N.C. 320 |
| Parties | Bruce R. FREEMAN, t/a Bruce's Tavern, Seabreeze Beach, Wilmington, North Carolina, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC CONTROL, State of North Carolina, Respondents. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., George A. Goodwyn, Staff Attorney, Raleigh, for respondent-appellant.
Addison Hewlett, Jr., Wilmington, for petitioner-appellee.
The record of the proceedings before the hearing officer disclosed that two ABC employees (apparently engaged in undercover work) purchased from Bruce Freeman three drinks of whiskey for which they paid $1.50 and later in the evening they purchased two drinks from Walter Freeman, in the presence of Bruce Freeman, for which they paid $1.00. In each instance the drinks were served in cups and from a bottle taken from beneath the counter. There was some discrepancy in the testimony of the officers as to whether Bruce Freeman or Walter Freeman sold the first drinks and the hour of the sales. On two prior occasions the retail beer license of Bruce Freeman had been suspended for lack of supervision of his permises in that he had permitted whiskey to be sold thereon.
On the foregoing evidence, which was uncontradicted, the hearing officer found the facts to be as testified to by the two undercover men. The State Board of Alcoholic Control reviewed the findings and conclusions, adopted them as its own, and entered the order revoking the permit effective May 15, 1964.
Authority to conduct a hearing and determine whether a State retail beer permit should be revoked is lodged in the State Board of Alcoholic Control by G.S. § 18-78. An aggrieved party may appeal to the Superior Court of Wake County after exhausting his administrative remedies. G.S. § 143-309. The review is before the judge, G.S. § 143-314, and the scope thereof is set forth in the next succeeding section. An aggrieved party may appeal to the Supreme Court for a review of superior Court judgment. G.S. § 143-316.
The duty to weight the evidence and find the facts is lodged in the agency that hears the witnesses and observes their demeanor as they testify--in this case the Board of Alcoholic Control. Its findings are conclusive if supported by material and substantial evidence. Campbell v. North Carolina State Board of Alcoholic Control, 263 N.C. 224, 139 S.E.2d 197; Thomas v. State Board of Alcoholic Control, 258 N.C. 513, 128 S.E.2d 884. 'Courts will not undertake to control the exercise of discretion and judgment on the part of the members of a commission in performing the functions of a state agency.' Town of Williamston v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 236 N.C. 271,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jow Sin Quan v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 38084
...Pauline v. Lee, 147 So.2d 359 (Fla.App.1962); State ex rel. Favazza v. Ketchum, 367 S.W.2d 542 (Mo.1963); Freeman v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 264 N.C. 320, 141 S.E.2d 499 (1965); Kearns v. Aragon, 65 N.M. 119, 333 P.2d 607 (1958); Murphy's Tayern v. Davis, 70 N.J.Super. 87, 175 A.2d 1 (1......
-
Underwood v. State Bd. of Alcoholic Control, No. 74
...material, and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.' G.S. § 143--315(5); Freeman v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 264 N.C. 320, 141 S.E.2d 499 (1965); Keg, Inc. v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 277 N.C. 450, 177 S.E.2d 861 (1970). The 'whole record' test must be distin......
-
Greensboro Elks Lodge v. North Carolina Bd. of Alcoholic Control
...to suppress was not dispositive of the competency of evidence in a subsequent administrative proceeding. Freeman v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 264 N.C. 320, 141 S.E.2d 499 (1965). Thus, we proceed to analyze the competency of the evidence introduced before respondent's hearing Petitioner r......
-
State v. Wilson
...the State Board of Alcoholic Control) against violators of the ABC laws are civil in nature. See Freeman v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 264 N.C. 320, 323-24, 141 S.E.2d 499, 502 (1965); Boyd v. Allen, 246 N.C. 150, 154, 97 S.E.2d 864, 867 In addition, concerning whether the fine at issue bo......