State v. . Rigsbee
189 S.E. 181, 211 N.C. 128, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 22
This text of 189 S.E. 181 (State v. . Rigsbee) 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. . Rigsbee, 189 S.E. 181, 211 N.C. 128, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 22 (N.C. 1937).
Opinion
At the trial of this action, the court instructed, the jury as follows:
“RTow, gentlemen of the jury, the court instructs you as a matter of law, that if you find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mrs. M. M. Rigsbee had in her possession on the premises occupied by her husband, Mack Rigsbee, intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and that he knew that she had it there and permitted her to keep it there, then upon that finding it would be your duty to return a verdict that he is guilty of having intoxicating liquor in his possession for the purpose of sale.”
The defendant Mack Rigsbee excepted to this instruction, and on his appeal assigns same as error.
There is no error in the instruction. See S. v. Hardy, 209 N. C., 83, 182 S. E., 831.
Ro error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Doyle v. State
1958 OK CR 4 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1958)
State v. . Farmer
192 S.E. 683 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
189 S.E. 181, 211 N.C. 128, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rigsbee-nc-1937.