State v. Sheffield
| Decision Date | 26 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 404. |
| Citation | 111 S.E. 617,183 N.C. 783 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHEFFIELD. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Moore County; Ferguson, Judge.
Ernest Sheffield was convicted of illegal possession of whisky for the purpose of sale, and he appeals. No error.
Evidence of illegal possession of whisky for purpose of sale held sufficient for the jury.
In a prosecution for possessing whisky for sale, where defendant stated he had procured some for another to whom he was carrying it when arrested, that he had the liquor, which was not the first time, and would have more soon and threatened the man who reported him, the court properly left to the jury the question whether he had the liquor as the seller's agent for the purpose of delivery to the buyer.
H. R Ihrie and H. F. Seawell, both of Carthage, for appellant.
James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted under an indictment which in a single count charged him with having the illegal possession of whisky for the purpose of sale, and from the judgment upon conviction appealed to this court.
There was no evidence in the record except that of the state, and it contends that, being capable of two inferences, it was argued upon those inferences and submitted to the jury, who found the defendant guilty. Stated briefly, the state's evidence was as follows: Deputy Sheriff Brown arrested the defendant in the town of Hemp, October 1, 1921, found a rifle in his automobile, and, under the cushion of the back seat, a half gallon of whisky in two quart packages. At the time the defendant was arrested he was under bond in another whisky case. Sheriff Brown immediately carried him before a justice of the peace and on the way defendant told him there was no use of having a trial, that he would just waive examination. He said that he had got a quart for himself and another quart for somebody else, but refused to tell who the other person was. He further said that the man who reported him had better never tell it or he would fix him and fix him good. The justice of the peace was present when the defendant was arrested, and at the trial told him he could move the case. Thereupon the defendant replied that he had the liquor and it was not the first time he had had liquor, and he would have some more pretty soon. The justice of the peace testified that as a revenue officer he had searched defendant's premises a number of times, but found nothing to arrest him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steele
... ... 447, 107 S.E. 442; State v ... Reed, 181 N.C. 507, 107 S.E. 443; State v ... Hall, 181 N.C. 527, 106 S.E. 483; State v ... Westmoreland, 181 N.C. 590, 107 S.E. 438; Green v ... Lumber Co., 182 N.C. 681, 110 S.E. 56; State v ... Winder, 183 N.C. 777, 111 S.E. 530; State v ... Sheffield, 183 N.C. 783, 111 S.E. 617; State v ... Kincaid, 183 N.C. 709, 110 S.E. 612; State v ... Montgomery, 183 N.C. 747, 111 S.E. 173; State v ... Baldwin, 184 N.C. 791, 114 S.E. 837; State v ... Ashburn, 187 N.C. 723, 122 S.E. 833; State v ... Barnhill, 186 N.C. 446, 119 S.E. 894; Proctor v ... ...
-
State v. Ashburn
... ... If this is not done, any objection in ... that respect will be considered as waived. We refer to a few ... of the most recent decisions upon this question. S. v ... Kincaid, 183 N.C. 709; S. v. Montgomery, 183 ... N.C. 747; S. v. Winder, 183 N.C. 777; S. v ... Sheffield ... ...
-
State v. Baldwin
...183 N.C. 709, 110 S.E. 612; State v. Montgomery, 183 N.C. 747, 111 S.E. 173; State v. Winder, 183 N.C. 777, 111 S.E. 530; State v. Sheffield, 183 N.C. 783, 111 S.E. 617. 14 was taken to a portion of the judge's charge. This, however, seems to be sustained by the authorities (State v. Kenned......
-
State v. Reagan
...183 N.C. 709, 110 S.E. 612; State v. Montgomery, 183 N.C. 747, 111 S.E. 173; State v. Winder, 183 N.C. 777, 111 S.E. 530; State v. Sheffield, 183 N.C. 783, 111 S.E. 617; West Construction Co. v. Railroad, 116 S.E. decided at this term. The following instruction was given the jury: "The stat......