State v. . Tate

185 S.E. 665, 210 N.C. 168, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 46
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 20, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 S.E. 665 (State v. . Tate) 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. . Tate, 185 S.E. 665, 210 N.C. 168, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 46 (N.C. 1936).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Under C. S., 3379, which is not in conflict with the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, ch. 418, Public Laws 1935, and therefore not repealed thereby (S. v. Langley, 209 N. C., 178), the possession of more than a gallon of spirituous liquor is prima facie evidence of its possession for the purpose of sale. S. v. Hammond, 188 N. C., 602, 125 S. E., 402; S. v. Bush, 177 N. C., 551, 98 S. E., 281. Hence, the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to warrant a conviction. S. v. Ellis, ante, 166.

The defendant contends that under the Turlington Act, 3 C. S., 3411 (j), the possession of the liquor in question was lawful. S. v. Dowell, 195 N. C., 523, 143 S. E., 133. This statute was expressly rendered inapplicable to New Hanover County by ch. 418, Public Laws 1935.

*170 There was a slight inaccurate statement by the Judge in his charge, hut taken as a whole, the lapsus linguae was neither misleading nor prejudicial. The verdict and judgment will he upheld.

No error.

ClarksoN, J., concurs in result.

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

Related

State v. . Lockey
199 S.E. 715 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
State v. . Epps
197 S.E. 580 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 S.E. 665, 210 N.C. 168, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tate-nc-1936.