State v. . Baker

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Baker

114 S.E. 754, 184 N.C. 752, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 175

DecidedDecember 13, 1922

StatusPublished

This text of 114 S.E. 754 (State v. . Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Baker, 114 S.E. 754, 184 N.C. 752, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 175 (N.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, J.

Tbe defendants’ first and second exceptions are directed to bis Honor’s refusal to grant tbeir motions for judgments as of non-suit, made first at tbe close of tbe State’s evidence and renewed at tbe close of all tbe evidence.

Bobert Gilliam, a witness for tbe State, testified tbat be bad seen all three of tbe defendants personally engaged in tbe operation of an illicit distillery in Buncombe County witbin tbe past two years; tbat, to bis own knowledge, eacb and every one of*tbe said defendants bad done work and taken a part in tbe manufacture of said intoxicating liquors. Tbis evidence, while denied by tbe defendants, was amply sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury. Tbe defendants, having lost before tbe jury, doubtless appealed “to see bow it might strike tbe Court.”

Tbe remaining exceptions, calling in question tbe validity of our State statutes since tbe adoption of tbe XVIII Amendment to tbe Constitution of tbe United States, must Fe overruled on authority of S. v. Campbell, 182 N. C., 911, and cases there cited.

No error.

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

Stacy, J.

Tbe defendants’ first and second exceptions are directed to bis Honor’s refusal to grant tbeir motions for judgments as of non-suit, made first at tbe close of tbe State’s evidence and renewed at tbe close of all tbe evidence.

Bobert Gilliam, a witness for tbe State, testified tbat be bad seen all three of tbe defendants personally engaged in tbe operation of an illicit distillery in Buncombe County witbin tbe past two years; tbat, to bis own knowledge, eacb and every one of*tbe said defendants bad done work and taken a part in tbe manufacture of said intoxicating liquors. Tbis evidence, while denied by tbe defendants, was amply sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury. Tbe defendants, having lost before tbe jury, doubtless appealed “to see bow it might strike tbe Court.”

Tbe remaining exceptions, calling in question tbe validity of our State statutes since tbe adoption of tbe XVIII Amendment to tbe Constitution of tbe United States, must Fe overruled on authority of S. v. Campbell, 182 N. C., 911, and cases there cited.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 754, 184 N.C. 752, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baker-nc-1922.