State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 28 February 1886
• Citation: 94 N.C. 891
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ISAAC WILLIAMS.

94 N.C. 891

STATE

v.ISAAC WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1886.

INDICTMENT for selling spirituous liquors to one Calvin Bethune, within five miles of Bethel church, in Richmond county, contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1881, ch. 234, tried before MacRae, Judge, at Fall Term, 1885, of RICHMOND Superior Court.

The defendant pleaded “not guilty,” and “former acquittal,” and the jury, on the trial of the plea of former acquittal, rendered the following special verdict: “The jury find, that on or about the fifth day of December, 1884, the defendant, at a certain place in the county of Richmond, known as the Jim Green place, did sell to Calvin Bethune, one quart of spirituous liquor, to-wit, “corn whiskey.”

They further find, that at the present Term of this Court, the defendant was tried upon an indictment for selling spirituous liquor to one William Wade, within five miles of Bethel Church, Richmond county; that on said trial, it was admitted by the State and defendant, that the selling of whiskey by defendant to William Wade, was at the “Jim Green place,” in said county, but defendant denied that the place of sale of said liquor was within five miles; that the presiding Judge instructed the jury on the trial of said bill of indictment, that the controlling question in the case was, whether the “Jim Green place” was within five miles of Bethel Church, in Richmond county, or not. If the jury find that the “Jim Green place” was within five miles of said Bethel Church, then the defendant, upon the testimony and admission, was guilty. If the State failed to prove this fact to the satisfaction of the jury, they must find a verdict of not guilty, and that thereupon the jury found the defendant not guilty. If, upon the foregoing facts, the Court is of the opinion that the defendant has been formerly acquitted, the jury find a verdict to that effect. If the Court is of opinion, upon these facts, that the defendant has not been formerly acquitted of the charge in this bill of indictment, they so find.”

The Court, upon the foregoing special verdict, directed that judgment be entered sustaining the plea of former acquittal. From this judgment the Solicitor for the State appealed.

Attorney-General, for the State .

Messrs. Platt D. Walker and Frank McNeill, for the defendant .

ASHE, J., (after stating the facts).

This is certainly a case of the first impression. We have been unable to find any case like it in the books on criminal law, and the learned and undefatigable counsel for the defendant, admitted in the argument of the case, that they had been unable, in their researches, to find any case where such a practice had been adopted.

The mischief intended to be remedied by the Act of 1881, under which the defendant was indicted, was evidently to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors, with their usual concomitants of drunkenness, broils and boisterous and riotous conduct, within five miles of Bethel Church, by which the religious worship in said church might be disturbed.

If the position contended for by the defendant's counsel be correct, then if one person should be indicted for selling liquor at a particular place, mentioned in the indictment, and the place so designated is not more than three miles, or less, from the church, and the State, by the introduction of ignorant witnesses, fails to prove that the place is within five miles, or by the introduction of corrupt witnesses, it should be proved and found by the jury, that the place was beyond the distance of five miles, the person so indicted and acquitted, would be at liberty to sell liquor at the same place, “ ad libitum,” though the State might be able to prove beyond all question, that the place was within the prohibited district.

Such is undoubtedly the effect of the adjudication in this case, if his Honor rendered his judgment upon the special verdict, upon the ground, as was argued before us, that the State was precluded in the latter indictment, from showing that the offence was committed within the distance of five miles, when on the former indictment, it had been found by the jury, that the place was...