State v. Farrington

• Decision Date: 16 May 1906
• Citation: 141 N. C. 844,53 S.E. 954
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. FARRINGTON.

53 S.E. 954

141 N. C. 844

STATE.

v.FARRINGTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 16, 1906.

1.Intoxicating Liquors—Wrongful Sale —Criminal Prosecutions—Punishment.For violating the statute prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquors without a license, the person convicted may be imprisoned in the county jail, with a direction that he be worked on the public roads.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 29, Cent, Dig. Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 356-361.]

2.Criminal Law—Cruel or Unusual Punishment.

Where no time is fixed by statute, the Supreme Court will not hold an imprisonment for two years, cruel and unusual.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 3308.]

3. Same—Sentence—Reasons.

In imposing sentence on a person convicted of selling liquor without a license, it was proper for the trial judge to state the reason that impelled him to impose the sentence passed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Ward, Judge.

T. B. Farrington was convicted of retailing spirituous liquors without a license, and he appeals.Affirmed.

The defendant was convicted for retailing spirituous liquors without license contrary to the statute.There was no exception to his honor's ruling upon the trial.The testimony tended to show that he had sold liquor upon two occasions, the last of which was 18 months before the finding of the bill of indictment.The solicitor introduced several other witnesses who swore that his reputation in the community was particularly bad, for selling whisky contrary to law.Some of the witnesses stated that it was generally reported that he had been engaged in the selling of whisky for 12 or 15 years up to about 12 months before the hearing of this case when he and his two sons had been indicted for burning a barn, the property of persons who had been active in prosecuting him for the unlawful sale of whisky.The court found as a fact that he was an old distiller before Watts law went into effect, and that after the enactment of the law he sold a lot of liquor around creating drunkenness in the neighborhood.The court thereupon sentenced the defendant to imprisonment of 12 months in the county jail, with direction that he be worked upon the public roads.To this sentence defendant excepted and appealed.

John A. Barringer, for appellant

The Attorney General, for the State.

CONNOR, J.(after stating the facts).It cannot, at this time, and in view of the many decisions of this court, be regarded as an open...