State v. Mills

69 S.E.2d 313, 235 N.C. 226, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 371

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: March 5, 1952
• Status: Published

Opinion

YalektiNE, J.

A witness for tbe State was asked if be knew tbe general character and reputation of tbe defendant. He replied: “It is good with tbe exception of dealing in whiskey.”

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a witness, who is questioned only as to defendant’s general character, may qualify and explain bis answer. S. v. McLawhorn, 195 N.C. 327, 141 S.E. 883; S. v. Saleeby, 183 N.C. 740, 110 S.E. 844; S. v. Mills, 184 N.C. 694, 114 S.E. 314; S. v. Reagan, 185 N.C. 710, 117 S.E. 1; S. v. Fleming, 194 N.C. 42, 138 S.E. 342; S. v. Pridgen, 194 N.C. 795, 139 S.E. 601; S. v. Butler, 177 N.C. 585, 98 S.E. 821; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, Sec. 114.

There was sufficient evidence to support tbe verdict of guilty upon tbe charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for tbe purpose of sale. S. v. Carlson, 171 N.C. 818, 89 S.E. 30; S. v. Mann, 219 N.C. 212, 13 S.E. 2d 247; S. v. Johnson, 220 N.C. 773, 18 S.E. 2d 358; G.S. 15-173.

Hence, tbe judgment of tbe court below must stand.

No error.