Hill v. State Board of Alcoholic Control

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Hill v. State Board of Alcoholic Control

195 S.E.2d 94, 17 N.C. App. 592, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1420

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 14, 1973

DocketNo. 7310SC194

StatusPublished

This text of 195 S.E.2d 94 (Hill v. State Board of Alcoholic Control) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. State Board of Alcoholic Control, 195 S.E.2d 94, 17 N.C. App. 592, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1420 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

GRAHAM, Judge.

Petitioners contend that in order for them to be found in violation of G.S. 18A-25(b), it was necessary for the State to charge and prove that the liquor sold was purchased from a county or municipal store. G.S. 18A-25(b) prohibits the possession for sale, or sales, of any liquor pwrchased from any county or municipal store. While this statute is cited in the notice served upon petitioners, G.S. 18A-3(a) is also cited therein, and the uncontradicted evidence before the Board clearly shows that petitioners violated this section. G.S. 18A-3(a) provides that “[n]o person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish, purchase, or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this Chapter.” Suffice to say, there is no provision in Chapter 18A of the General Statutes, or in any other law in this State, that authorizes the sale of liquor in private or public clubs or restaurants in this State.

Petitioners further contend that the charges should have been dismissed because the ABC officer’s identification of the Club as the Club Riviera was based upon hearsay evidence. This [595]*595argument is without merit. The testimony of the witness as to the identification of the Club was not contradicted. Moreover, both of the permittees were present on the premises. One was collecting cover charges at the door and the other was working as a bartender.

Any one of the two violations found by the Board would support the suspension of petitioners’ permits: C’est Bon, Inc. v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 279 N.C. 140, 181 S.E. 2d 448. The evidence fully supports the findings of the Board as to both violations.

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Vaughn concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRAHAM, Judge.

Petitioners contend that in order for them to be found in violation of G.S. 18A-25(b), it was necessary for the State to charge and prove that the liquor sold was purchased from a county or municipal store. G.S. 18A-25(b) prohibits the possession for sale, or sales, of any liquor pwrchased from any county or municipal store. While this statute is cited in the notice served upon petitioners, G.S. 18A-3(a) is also cited therein, and the uncontradicted evidence before the Board clearly shows that petitioners violated this section. G.S. 18A-3(a) provides that “[n]o person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish, purchase, or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this Chapter.” Suffice to say, there is no provision in Chapter 18A of the General Statutes, or in any other law in this State, that authorizes the sale of liquor in private or public clubs or restaurants in this State.

Petitioners further contend that the charges should have been dismissed because the ABC officer’s identification of the Club as the Club Riviera was based upon hearsay evidence. This [595]*595argument is without merit. The testimony of the witness as to the identification of the Club was not contradicted. Moreover, both of the permittees were present on the premises. One was collecting cover charges at the door and the other was working as a bartender.

Any one of the two violations found by the Board would support the suspension of petitioners’ permits: C’est Bon, Inc. v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 279 N.C. 140, 181 S.E. 2d 448. The evidence fully supports the findings of the Board as to both violations.

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 S.E.2d 94, 17 N.C. App. 592, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-board-of-alcoholic-control-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack