State v. . Hall

155 S.E. 567, 199 N.C. 685, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 219
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 5, 1930·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendants excepted to certain declarations of a witness for the State named Vann, tending to show that they had engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor and were the owners of a still found at the home of the witness Beverly. However, the witness Beverly had previously testified to substantially the same facts without objection. Hence the exception cannot be sustained. Shelton v. R. R., 193 N. C., 670.

At the time of the search the officers inquired of the witness Beverly where the whiskey was, and said witness told them where it could be found. Thereafter a keg was found at the home of Clayton Hall, a brother of defendant, Sherman Hall, and. with whom the defendant Sherman lived. The finding of this keg would be incompetent as an independent fact, but it appears upon the record that the defendants, Hall & Reynolds, were acting together in procuring a still, setting it up and actually manufacturing whiskey. Hence the testimony objected to was a part of the same transaction. Furthermore, the testimony tended to corroborate witness Beverly, who told the officers where they could find the whiskey so manufactured.

No error.

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

State v. . Hall, 155 S.E. 567, 199 N.C. 685, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 219 (N.C. 1930).

155 S.E. 567 (State v. . Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. . Matheson
33 S.E.2d 590 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
State v. . Gordon
30 S.E.2d 43 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)