State v. Hazell

• Citation: 100 N.C. 471,6 S.E. 404
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 07 May 1888
• Parties: State v. Hazell.

6 S.E. 404

(100 N.C. 471)

State

v.Hazell.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 7, 1888.

1. Intoxicating Liquors—Unlawful Sales—United States License.

That one is a licensed distiller under the laws of the United States, and the whisky sold of his own manufacture, affords no immunity for a sale contrary to state law.

2. Same—Sale at Place of Manufacture.

A sale of whisky, made by defendant 300 or 400 yards from his distillery, though on his own farm, is not a sale " at the place of manufacture, " within the meaning of Acts N. C. 1885, c. 175, § 34, allowing any person to sell liquor or wines of his own manufacture, at the place of manufacture, without license.

3. Same—Indictment.

An indictment under Acts N. C. 1885, c. 175, § 34, relating to the sale of spirituous liquors, and requiring a license—" First, for selling in quantities less than a quart, " etc.; "second, for selling in quantities of one quart, and less than five gallons, " etc., —which charges a sale by the measure of less than a gallon, is fatally defective, as failing to show whether the charge is made under the first or second paragraph, and a verdict finding that defendant sold " one gallon of whisky " does not aid the indictment.

Appeal from superior court, Alamance county; Clark, Judge.

The Attorney General, for the State.

Davis, J. Indictment for unlawfully retailing spirituous liquor, by the measure less than a gallon, without license, tried before Clark, J., at the spring term, 1886, of the superior court of Alamance county. The jury returned a special verdict, as follows: "That in June, 1885, John Jeffries bought of the defendant, Duncan Hazell, one gallon of whisky, at defendant's store on his plantation, in Alamance county; that defendant had no state license to retail spirituous liquors, but was a licensed distiller under the laws of the United States, and the whisky sold was of his own manufacture; that defendant's distillery was 300 or 400 yards distant from the store where this whisky was sold, but on the same premises, which was a farm of forty acres belonging to the defendant; and that he had no other place of retailing liquor, this being his sole place of business. The jury say for their verdict that if the court is of opinion, upon this state of facts, that the defendant is guilty, they so say for their verdict; and if, upon said state of facts, the court is of opinion that the defendant is not guilty, they return for their verdict that he is not guilty." The court being of opinion that the defendant was not guilty, the verdict was so entered, with judgment that the defendant be discharged, from which the state appealed.

The indictment charges that the defendant, in the county of Alamance, "to one John Jeffries, spirituous liquor, to the measure less than a gallon, unlawfully did retail; the said Duncan Hazell not having then and there a license to retail spirituous liquor by the measure aforesaid, " etc. Chapter 175, § 34, Acts 1885, relating to the...