State v. Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Mills

89 S.E.2d 141, 242 N.C. 604, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 626

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 21, 1955

Docket3

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 S.E.2d 141 (State v. Mills) 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. Mills, 89 S.E.2d 141, 242 N.C. 604, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 626 (N.C. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee CuRiam.

The defendant was tried, in the McDowell County Criminal Court on a warrant charging possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale. From conviction and judgment in that court the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. When the case was called for trial in the Superior Court, on motion of the Solicitor, the warrant was amended to charge also unlawful possession of nontax-paid liquor. This was treated as a second count in the warrant. The jury returned verdict of guilty of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. No verdict was rendered as to the original count. From judgment on the verdict the defendant appealed.

Defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment must be allowed for the reasons set out in S. v. Hall, 240 N.C. 109, 81 S.E. 2d 189, and cases there cited.

Judgment arrested.

Winborne and HiggiNS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Pee CuRiam.

The defendant was tried, in the McDowell County Criminal Court on a warrant charging possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale. From conviction and judgment in that court the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. When the case was called for trial in the Superior Court, on motion of the Solicitor, the warrant was amended to charge also unlawful possession of nontax-paid liquor. This was treated as a second count in the warrant. The jury returned verdict of guilty of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. No verdict was rendered as to the original count. From judgment on the verdict the defendant appealed.

Defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment must be allowed for the reasons set out in S. v. Hall, 240 N.C. 109, 81 S.E. 2d 189, and cases there cited.

Judgment arrested.

Winborne and HiggiNS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E.2d 141, 242 N.C. 604, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mills-nc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack