State v. Ritchie

• Decision Date: 30 November 1955
• Docket Number: No. 506,506
• Citation: 243 N.C. 182,90 S.E.2d 301
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE, v. William Jackson RITCHIE.

Page 301

90 S.E.2d 301

243 N.C. 182

STATE, v. William Jackson RITCHIE.

No. 506

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 30, 1955

Robert L. Warren, Concord, for defendant appellant.

Wm. B. Rodman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Claude L. Love, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WINBORNE, Justice.

What is said by this Court in State v. Brady, 236 N.C. 295, 72 S.E.2d 675, 676, is pertinent to case in hand. Paraphrasing the factual situation there stated, it may be said here: Cabarrus County has not elected to operate county liquor stores under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 1937, G.S. § 18-36 et seq. In consequence, this case is controlled by the Turlington Act of 1923, G.S. § 18-1 et seq., as modified by the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act applicable to counties not engaged in operating county liquor stores, citing cases.

Upon similar premises in the Brady case this Court had this to say:

'These propositions are established law in counties which do not operate county liquor stores under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 1937:

'1. Under the relevant section of the Turlington Act, i. e., G.S. § 18-11, as modified by applicable provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, i. e., G.S. § 18-49 and G.S. § 18-58, the possession by the accused, even within his private dwelling, of more than one gallon of intoxicating liquor upon which the taxes imposed by law have been paid constitutes prima facie evidence that such liquor is kept for the purpose of being sold where the accused is charged with the commission of that offense by the indictment or warrant. [Citing cases.]

'2. Under the relevant section of the Turlington Act, i. e., G.S. § 18-11, as modified by the applicable provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, a person may lawfully have or keep in his private dwelling while the same is occupied and used by him as his dwelling only an unlimited quantity of intoxicating liquor upon which the taxes imposed by law have been paid for use only for the personal consumption of himself, and of his family residing in such dwelling, and of his bona fide guests when entertained by him therein.' (Citing cases.)

Bearing in mind these principles, it is noted that in the instant case the trial court has considered and treated the warrant as containing three separate counts, and the record discloses that all of the evidence adduced by the State upon the trial in Superior Court relates to the same intoxicating liquor, on which the taxes have been paid, which defendant possessed in his residence. It is charged that the defendant possessed the liquor unlawfully, that he possessed it for the purpose of sale, and that he transported it unlawfully. But the trial judge allowed the motion of defendant for judgment as of nonsuit as to the third count charging unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor. It follows that defendant was not guilty of having obtained the liquor unlawfully. Therefore, as in the Brady case, the jury could have drawn only one of these opposing inferences from the evidence: That defendant possessed the liquor for the personal consumption of himself and family and...