State v. Burchfield
Decision Date | 09 December 1908 |
Citation | 149 N.C. 537,63 S.E. 89 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE . v. BURCHFIELD. |
1. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 169*)—Offenses —Statutes—Construction —"Principals."
Rev. 1905, § 3534, provides that any person who shall unlawfully procure and deliver intoxicating liquor to another shall be the agent of the seller, and makes it a misdemeanor. Held, that one who procured liquor from an illicit dealer in the state by purchase and delivered it to another, both the purchase and the delivery being made at a place where the sale of liquor is prohibited, is deemed a principal, aud liable criminally as the seller of the liquor is liable, since in misdemeanors all who participate in the offense are principals.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 187, 188; Dec. Dig. § 169.*
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 5552-5557; vol. 8, p. 7763.]
2. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236*)—Illegal Sales—Statutes—Evidence.
One charged with buying liquor from an illicit dealer and delivering the same to another who had paid the price, in violation of Rev. 1905, § 3534, providing that any person who shall unlawfully procure and deliver intoxicating liquor shall be the agent of the seller, cannot defeat a conviction by testifying that he was not the agent of the seller of the liquor.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec Dig. § 236.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Mitchell County; Councill, Judge.
Isaac Burchfleld was convicted of unlawfully retailing liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Gus Tolley, a witness for the state, testified: The defendant, in his own behalf, testified: The court instructed the jury that, if they found the facts to be as stated by the defendant in his testimony, they should return a verdict of guilty. The jury convicted the defendant, and, judgment having been rendered upon the verdict, he appealed to this court.
S. J. Ervin and M. N. Harshaw, for appellant.
Hayden Clement, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
It may be conceded for the sake of argument that there is no evidence in this case that the defendant sold any liquor, with or without a license, unless in buying the whisky from William Triplett, the illicit dealer, for Gus and George Tolley, he acted as his agent, or, more properly speaking, aided and abetted the illicit dealer in the sale of the whisky. In the case of State v. Smith, 117 N. C. 809, 23 S. E. 449, it was said that While it is true that a person who buys for himself, even from an illicit dealer, may not be criminally liable, because he cannot be.considered, in a legal sense, as assisting the dealer in making a sale by merely buying from him, yet, under the present law, he does aid him in making a sale to another if he procures the money which is to be paid to the dealer as the the price for the liquor, and then pays it tohim, receives the liquor, and delivers it to the purchaser. The law had prohibited the sale of liquor at the place where this liquor was sold by Triplett and delivered to the Tolleys. Acts 1903, p. 572, c 349. It is provided by Revisal 1905, § 3534, as follows: "If any person shall unlawfully procure and deliver any spirituous or malt liquors to another, he shall be deemed and held in law to be the agent of the person selling said spirituous and malt liquors, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished in the discretion of the court" The meaning of that section is not very aptly expressed, but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial