State v. . Baker

Supreme Court of North Carolina
State v. . Baker, 114 S.E. 754 (N.C. 1922)
184 N.C. 752; 1922 N.C. LEXIS 175
Stacy

State v. . Baker

Opinion of the Court

Stacy, J.

Tbe defendants’ first and second exceptions are directed to bis Honor’s refusal to grant tbeir motions for judgments as of non-suit, made first at tbe close of tbe State’s evidence and renewed at tbe close of all tbe evidence.

Bobert Gilliam, a witness for tbe State, testified tbat be bad seen all three of tbe defendants personally engaged in tbe operation of an illicit distillery in Buncombe County witbin tbe past two years; tbat, to bis own knowledge, eacb and every one of*tbe said defendants bad done work and taken a part in tbe manufacture of said intoxicating liquors. Tbis evidence, while denied by tbe defendants, was amply sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury. Tbe defendants, having lost before tbe jury, doubtless appealed “to see bow it might strike tbe Court.”

Tbe remaining exceptions, calling in question tbe validity of our State statutes since tbe adoption of tbe XVIII Amendment to tbe Constitution of tbe United States, must Fe overruled on authority of S. v. Campbell, 182 N. C., 911, and cases there cited.

No error.

Reference

Full Case Name
State v. Lloyd Baker, Mans Gasperson, and Harry Gasperson.
Status
Published