State v. Ingram, 356.

• Decision Date: 19 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 356.,356.
• Citation: 204 N. C. 557,168 S.E. 837
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE . v. INGRAM et al.

168 S.E. 837

204 N. C. 557

STATE .

v.INGRAM et al.

No. 356.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 19, 1933

.

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Clement, Judge.

Dock Ingram and Odell Norman were convicted of promoting and setting on foot a lottery, and they appeal.

No error.

The defendants were indicted for a breach of C. S. § 4428, which provides: "If any person shall open, set on foot, carry on, promote, make or draw, publicly or privately, a lottery, by whatever name, style or title the same may be denominated or known; or if any person, by such way and means, expose or set to sale any house, real estate, goods, chattels, cash, written evidence of debt, certificates of claims or any other thing of value whatsoever, every person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding two thousand dollars or imprisoned not exceeding six months, or both, in the discretion of the court.Any person who engages in disposingof any species of property whatsoever, including money and evidences of debt; or in any manner distributes gifts or prizes upon tickets or certificates sold for that purpose, shall be held liable to prosecution under this section."

The specific charge in the warrant is that the defendants"did unlawfully and willfully promote, set on foot, publicly or privately, a certain lottery where money is spent and a game of chance is taken."The defendants were convicted, and from the judgment pronounced they appealed.

John D. Slawter and Richmond Rucker, both of Winston-Salem, for appellants.

Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen.. A. A. F. Seawell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gertrude Up-church, of Raleigh, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The defendants offered no evidence.There is proof that they were engaged in the operation of a lottery.When arraigned in the municipal court, Odell Norman pleaded guilty of the offense charged in the warrant, and, in the absence of explanatory evidence, is presumed to have understood the significance of his plea.His plea was admissible against him upon his trial in the superior court.16 C. J. 630, § 1254(7).The trial court was therefore correct in refusing to dismiss the action.Exceptions to the admission of evidence and to the charge of the court comprise the remaining assignments of error.

Odell Norman was the owner and proprietor of the premises.In the rear of his barber shop there was a pool room in which it is contended the gambling device was situated.The lottery seems to have been...