State v. Johnston

• Decision Date: 22 November 1905
• Parties: STATE v. JOHNSTON.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

52 S.E. 273

139 N.C. 640

STATE v. JOHNSTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 22, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Cooke, Judge.

Monroe Johnston was indicted for retailing liquors without a license, and from a judgment finding defendant not guilty on the special verdict, the state appeals. Reversed.

Defendant who was not licensed to sell liquor, met B., and told him that he was going to another city and wanted to know if B wanted any whisky. B. replied that he wanted one-half gallon for which he paid defendant a dollar, without agreeing to pay any of defendant's expenses of the journey. Defendant returned next day, and delivered the whisky to B. in the city where the contract was made in which the sale of liquor was prohibited. Held, that such facts constituted a sale of liquor within the prohibited territory.

The Attorney General, for the State. Stewart & McRae, for appellee.

BROWN J.

It is unnecessary to set out the lengthy special verdict. It appears therein: That the sale of liquor is prohibited in the city of Charlotte, and was on July 15, 1905. That on the evening of July 15, 1905, Tom Brown, between the hours of 6 and 7 o'clock p. m., near the Southern Depot in the city of Charlotte, Mecklenburg county, N. C., met the accused Monroe Johnston. The said Monroe Johnston told him that he was going to Salisbury, and wanted to know if he wanted any whisky. Tom Brown told him he wanted a half gallon of whisky. Monroe Johnston, the prisoner, agreed to bring him one-half gallon from Salisbury, for which he paid Monroe Johnston one dollar. That he was not to pay Monroe Johnston anything towards his fare to Salisbury and return. It further appears that on next morning defendant delivered to Tom Brown, in pursuance of his contract, the half gallon of whisky within said city.

In the view we take of this case, it is unnecessary to discuss the question of agency and the other legal aspects of the case so ably and elaborately presented by the Attorney General in his argument and brief. We think the facts set out in the special verdict plainly disclose an agreement or contract to deliver to Tom Brown one-half gallon of whisky, entered into in the city of Charlotte on July 15th by the defendant, and a receipt of the agreed price; also a delivery of the whisky by the defendant the next morning in pursuance of the agreement. These facts constitute a sale of liquor upon the...