State v. . Turpin
164 S.E. 926, 203 N.C. 11, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 299
Opinion
The evidence respecting the reputation of defendant’s garage for selling liquor was hearsay and should have been excluded. S. v. Springs, 184 N. C., 768, 114 S. E., 851; S. v. Mills, 184 N. C., 694, 114 S. E., 314. The identical question was before the Court in the two cases just cited. Further discussion would only call for a repetition of what was said in these cases.
New trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. . Turpin, 164 S.E. 926, 203 N.C. 11, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 299 (N.C. 1932).
164 S.E. 926 (State v. . Turpin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Weldon
333 S.E.2d 701 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1985)
State v. Tessnear
144 S.E.2d 43 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)