State v. Little
| Decision Date | 03 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 401. |
| Citation | 88 S.E. 723,171 N.C. 805 |
| Parties | STATE v. LITTLE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Anson County; Justice, Judge.
Tony Little was convicted of unlawfully bringing whisky into the state, and he appeals. Reversed.
The indictment is for violation of chapter 97, Public Laws 1915. The bill of indictment is as follows:
"The jurors for the state, upon their oaths, present that Tony Little, late of the county of Anson, on the 9th day of October, in the year of our Lord 1915, with force and arms at and in the county aforesaid, willfully and unlawfully transport from Florence, S. C., and bring into the state of North Carolina, certain spirituous or vinous liquor in a quantity or quantities greater than one quart, the said liquor or a part thereof being for the purpose of delivery to persons whose names are unknown to the jurors, against the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state."
On the trial the jury rendered the following special verdict:
"The jury impaneled in this cause find the following to be the facts in this case: On the ______ day of November, 1915, the defendant, in Florence, S. C., purchased four quarts of whisky, one quart of this being for himself, and one quart for each of the following persons: B. F. Gullidge, Jr., Mallie Gullidge and Geo. Gaddy. He got upon the train in Florence, S. C., and came to Wadesboro, Anson county, N. C., with the whisky, intending to use one quart for himself and deliver one quart to each of the three persons above named, who resided in Anson county.
If upon these facts the court is of opinion that the defendant is guilty, we return guilty to be our verdict; if the court is of the opinion that upon these facts the defendant is not guilty, we return as our verdict not guilty.
The court being of opinion, under the special verdict in this case, that the defendant is guilty under the law, the verdict of guilty is entered."
Judgment on the verdict, and defendant excepted and appealed.
Jas. A. Lockhart, of Wadesboro, for appellant.
The Attorney General and T. H. Calvert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The validity of the act of Congress commonly known as the Webb-Kenyon Law (Fed. Stat. Ann. Supp. 1914, c. 90, p. 208 [U. S. Comp. St. 1913, § 8739]) and our state legislation passed in reference thereto, notably chapter 97, Laws 1915, and chapter 44, Laws 1913, has been established in this jurisdiction so far as the question can be settled by state decision. Glenn v. Express Co., 170 N.C. 286, 87 S.E. 136; State v. Railroad, 169 N.C. 295, 84 S.E. 283; and other like cases.
As a matter of form, in respect to the feature of the charge that the unlawful delivery of the quantity specified was to "a person or persons to the jurors unknown," the bill of indictment has been held sufficient. State v. Dowdy, 145 N.C. 432, 58 S.E. 1002; State v. Tisdale, 145 N.C. page 422, 58 S.E. 998, 13 Ann. Cas. 125. And the principal question presented is whether, on the facts contained in the special verdict, the defendant is guilty of the offense, under the statute, charged against him in the bill. The part of the law more directly relevant to the inquiry (chapter 97, Laws 1915, § 1) is as follows:
"That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, or any agent, officer or employé thereof, to ship, transport, carry or deliver, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, for hire or otherwise, in any one package or at any one time from a point within or without this state to any person, firm, or corporation in this state any spirituous or vinous liquors, or intoxicating bitters in a quantity greater than one quart, or any malt liquors in a quantity greater than five gallons; and it shall be unlawful for any spirituous or vinous liquors or intoxicating bitters so shipped, transported, carried or delivered in any one package to be contained in more than one receptacle."
From a perusal of this section it appears that the provision creates, and was intended to create, two offenses: (1) That of carrying or transporting in this state or from a point within or without the state by any person, firm, or corporation to or for any other person, firm, or corporation, in one package or at one and the same time, more than one quart of spirituous liquors; (2) that of so carrying or transporting spirituous or malt liquors in any quantity where the package for such person is contained in more than one receptacle; that is, each package shall be carried for and go to its owner as a distinct and separate parcel.
The bill of indictment, drawn under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carpenter
...laid down in State v. Lewis, 93 N.C. 581. There can be no question as to the constitutionality of this statute. It was recognized in State v. Little, supra, and cases recently decided in the highest federal court affirm the validity of similar enactments. J. C. Distilling Co. v. W. M. Railw......
-
State v. Coleman
... ... evidence of the state is believed, the defendant was ... transporting his own liquor, and not for the purpose of sale, ... and we do not think handing a bottle to a companion to take a ... drink is such delivery as is contemplated by the statute, ... which was construed in State v. Little, 171 N.C ... 807, 88 S.E. 723, to mean transporting or carrying "to ... or for any other person, firm or corporation." ... This ... does not, however, entitle the defendant to a new trial, ... because there are two good counts as to which there is no ... error, and-- ... ...