State v. Denton
| Decision Date | 13 December 1913 |
| Citation | 164 N.C. 530,80 S.E. 401 |
| Parties | STATE v. DENTON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The recorder's court has jurisdiction of the offense of a violation of Pub. Laws 1913, e. 44, punishing one having possession of intoxicating liquor for sale, though he may be sentenced to 12 months on the roads.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 216; Dec. Dig. § 197.*]
Where, on a trial for having possession of intoxicating liquors for sale in violation of Pub. Acts 1913, c. 44, the evidence showed the finding by the officers of a large quantity of liquor on the premises of accused, an instruction that the possession of the liquor in the quantity as testified to established a prima facie case, and that if the facts were true, and accused had possession for purpose of sale, the verdict mustbe one of guilty, otherwise the verdict must be not guilty, properly applied the rule of evidence prescribed in the act to the facts in the case.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 331-347; Dec. Dig. § 239.*]
Pub. Acts 1913, c. 44, making it unlawful to have possession of intoxicating liquors for sale, in force from and after April 1, 1913, and ratified March 3, 1913, is not objectionable as ex post facto when applied to the finding of liquor in the possession of accused April 17, 1913, in the absence of anything to show that the liquor was acquired prior to the ratification of the act.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 570-575; Dec. Dig. § 200;* Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 21-23; Dec. Dig. § 17.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Edgecombe County; Long, Judge.
R. II. Denton was convicted of having intoxicating liquors in his possession with intent to sell, and sentenced to twelve months on the roads, and he appeals. Affirmed.
F. S. Spruill, of Rocky Mount, and H. A. Gilliam and James M. Norfleet, both of Tarboro, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Bickett and Asst. Atty. Gen. Calvert;, for the State.
Under the Search and Seizure Act of 1913 (chapter 44), a warrant was sworn out against the defendant charging him with having in his possession, for the purpose of sale, 29 barrels of whisky, 71 one-half pints, and 38 quarts of corn whisky. The action was originally tried in the recorder's court of Edgecombe county, and, upon conviction, the defendant appealed to the superior court. In the superior court the evidence disclosed that under a proper search warrant a lawful officer found, concealed in different parts of the livery and feed stables of the defendant, a large quantity of whisky in quart, pint, and half-pint bottles, all of which was claimed by the defendant as his own. There was no evidence of any sale by the defendant, nor by any one in his presence, nor by any one to his knowledge; but there was evidence of sale by another upon the premises of the defendant. It further appeared that all of this whisky was shipped into the state of North Carolina and delivered to the defendant prior to April 1, 1913. The whisky was found in defendant's possession April 17, 1913. The Search and Seizure Act of 1913, c. 44, contains these provisions:
Ratified March 3, 1913.
1. The first point pressed by the learn ed counsel for the defendant is that the recorder's court had no jurisdiction, and that the defendant should have been indicted in the superior court and tried upon such bill.
We are of opinion that this question has been settled at least by a majority of this court by repeated decisions adverse to such contention. State v. Lytle, 138 N. C. 738, 51 S. E. 66; State v. Dunlap, 159 N. C. 491, 74 S. E. 626.
2. It is assigned as error that the court instructed, the jury: "Upon the foregoing facts the court stated that he would hold that the search and seizure law of 1913 applied to this case and instructed the jury that the possession of liquor in the quantity as testified to constituted a prima facie case, and that if they should find beyond a reasonable doubt the facts to be true, and should further find purpose of sale, then they should return a verdict of guilty, but otherwise they should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Application of Crane
... ... those objects; and is, therefore, a reasonable exercise of ... the police power of the state ... 2. The ... object of the title of an act is to give a general statement ... of the subject matter, and such a general statement will ... 70, 98 P. 61; Sullivan v. City of ... Oneida, 61 Ill. 242; City of Christopher v ... Massotti, 173 Ill.App. 241; State v. Denton, ... 164 N.C. 530, 80 S.E. 401; State v. Lee, 164 N.C ... 533, 80 S.E. 405; Huffman v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 476, ... 119 P. 644; Bird v ... ...
-
State v. Toler
...would be warranted. The exception to such instruction is sustained. State v. Bond, 49 N.C. 9; State v. Bell, 61 N.C. 76; State v. Denton, 164 N.C. 530, 80 S.E. 401. The second instruction to the jury, to the effect "that the law required a pedestrian to walk on the left-hand, and not on the......
- State v. Denton
-
State v. Bush
... ... 44, § 2; Gregory's Supp. § 2080b(2) ... And constructive possession is sufficient. State v ... Lee, 164 N.C. 533, 80 S.E. 405 ... The ... defendant also excepted because he was sentenced to four ... months in jail, but this was not excessive (State v ... Denton, 164 N.C. 530, 80 S.E. 401), and the permission ... ...