State v. . Jones

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Jones

34 S.E.2d 202, 225 N.C. 363, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 310

DecidedJune 6, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 34 S.E.2d 202 (State v. . Jones) 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. . Jones, 34 S.E.2d 202, 225 N.C. 363, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 310 (N.C. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The case is here on the record proper in response to certiorari which was issued at the instance of appellant to preserve his right of appeal. Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713; Hicks v. Westbrook, 121 N. C., 131, 28 S. E., 188. The only exception is to the “judgment (of forfeiture) as set out in the record” and the failure to sign judgment of restoration as prayed. Smith v. Smith, 223 N. C., 433, 27 S. E. (2d), 137; Cooper v. Cooper, 221 N. C., 124, 19 S. E. (2d), 237; Holding v. Daniel, 217 N. C., 473, 8 S. E. (2d), 249.

The alleged invalidity of the search warrant is of no avail to the appellant on his challenge to the order of forfeiture, since the defendants, Jones and Stanley, who had possession of the liquor, have not appealed from their convictions, and the appellant was acquitted on the criminal charge. S. v. Wallace, 162 N. C., 622, 78 S. E., 1. In addition, there is no exceptive assignment of error addressed to the point.

No error appears on the face of the record as filed in this Court. Edwards v. Perry, 208 N. C., 252, 179 S. E., 892; S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421. Hence the judgment of forfeiture will be upheld. S. v. Hall, 224 N. C., 314, 30 S. E. (2d), 158.

Affirmed.

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

Stacy, C. J.

The case is here on the record proper in response to certiorari which was issued at the instance of appellant to preserve his right of appeal. Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713; Hicks v. Westbrook, 121 N. C., 131, 28 S. E., 188. The only exception is to the “judgment (of forfeiture) as set out in the record” and the failure to sign judgment of restoration as prayed. Smith v. Smith, 223 N. C., 433, 27 S. E. (2d), 137; Cooper v. Cooper, 221 N. C., 124, 19 S. E. (2d), 237; Holding v. Daniel, 217 N. C., 473, 8 S. E. (2d), 249.

The alleged invalidity of the search warrant is of no avail to the appellant on his challenge to the order of forfeiture, since the defendants, Jones and Stanley, who had possession of the liquor, have not appealed from their convictions, and the appellant was acquitted on the criminal charge. S. v. Wallace, 162 N. C., 622, 78 S. E., 1. In addition, there is no exceptive assignment of error addressed to the point.

No error appears on the face of the record as filed in this Court. Edwards v. Perry, 208 N. C., 252, 179 S. E., 892; S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421. Hence the judgment of forfeiture will be upheld. S. v. Hall, 224 N. C., 314, 30 S. E. (2d), 158.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 S.E.2d 202, 225 N.C. 363, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-nc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack