State v. . Hicks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Hicks

94 S.E. 964, 174 N.C. 802, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 213

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 31, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 964 (State v. . Hicks) 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. . Hicks, 94 S.E. 964, 174 N.C. 802, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 213 (N.C. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Brown, J.

Chapter 35, Public Laws 1911, entitled “An Act to prohibit the sale of near-beer, beerine, and other like drinks,” provides in section 1 that it shall be unlawful to sell or dispose of, for gain, “near-beer, beerine, or other spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors,” etc.; and section 3 makes the following exception: “Provided, further, that this act shall not apply to the sale of domestic wines when sold in quantity of not less than 2% gallons, in sealed packages or crated, on the premises where manufactured, or to the sale of cider in any quantity by the manufacturer from fruits grown on his land within the State of North Carolina.”

Chapter 44, Public Laws 1913, generally known as the “Search and Seizure Law,” excepts from its operation “wines and ciders in any quantity, where such wines and ciders have been manufactured from grapes or fruit grown on the premises of the person in whose possession such wines and ciders may be.”

Chapter 97, Public Laws 1915, being entitled “An Act to restrict the receipt and use of intoxicating liquors,” was passed primarily to regulate the shipment of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, and seems to contain no.provision applicable to the facts in this record. It thus appears to be the policy and express purpose of our Legislature to except from the operation of the prohibition law the sale of cider in any quantity, and the sale of domestic wines in quantities of not less than 2% gallons, in sealed packages or crated, on the premises where manufactured, when made from fruits grown on the lands of the manufacturer within the State of North Carolina. S. v. Williams, 172 N. C., 973.

The facts found in the special verdict, in our opinion, do not constitute *804 a violation of tbe laws of the State, either for the manufacture to sell or for the defendant to purchase and have the wine in his possession. The brief filed for the State concurs in this view.

Affirmed.

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

Brown, J.

Chapter 35, Public Laws 1911, entitled “An Act to prohibit the sale of near-beer, beerine, and other like drinks,” provides in section 1 that it shall be unlawful to sell or dispose of, for gain, “near-beer, beerine, or other spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors,” etc.; and section 3 makes the following exception: “Provided, further, that this act shall not apply to the sale of domestic wines when sold in quantity of not less than 2% gallons, in sealed packages or crated, on the premises where manufactured, or to the sale of cider in any quantity by the manufacturer from fruits grown on his land within the State of North Carolina.”

Chapter 44, Public Laws 1913, generally known as the “Search and Seizure Law,” excepts from its operation “wines and ciders in any quantity, where such wines and ciders have been manufactured from grapes or fruit grown on the premises of the person in whose possession such wines and ciders may be.”

Chapter 97, Public Laws 1915, being entitled “An Act to restrict the receipt and use of intoxicating liquors,” was passed primarily to regulate the shipment of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, and seems to contain no.provision applicable to the facts in this record. It thus appears to be the policy and express purpose of our Legislature to except from the operation of the prohibition law the sale of cider in any quantity, and the sale of domestic wines in quantities of not less than 2% gallons, in sealed packages or crated, on the premises where manufactured, when made from fruits grown on the lands of the manufacturer within the State of North Carolina. S. v. Williams, 172 N. C., 973.

The facts found in the special verdict, in our opinion, do not constitute *804 a violation of tbe laws of the State, either for the manufacture to sell or for the defendant to purchase and have the wine in his possession. The brief filed for the State concurs in this view.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 964, 174 N.C. 802, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hicks-nc-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack