State v. . Morrison
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The defendant was indicted for retailing spirituous liquors by a less measure than a quart. On the trial, before his Honor Judge Strancíe, at Robeson, on thelast circuit, the charge of selling by the small measure being fully proved by the prosecution, it was contended for the defendant,- that the state must prove the want of a licence. But his Honor charged the jury, that it was incumbent on the defendant to show the existence of a licence.
Read the full summary
The defendant was indicted for retailing spirituous liquors by a less measure than a quart. On the trial, before his Honor Judge Strancíe, at Robeson, on thelast circuit, the charge of selling by the small measure being fully proved by the prosecution, it was contended for the defendant,- that the state must prove the want of a licence. But his Honor charged the jury, that it was incumbent on the defendant to show the existence of a licence. A verdict was rendered for the state, and the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Ruffin, Judge.
This appeal seems to rest on the argument, that the indictment ought, and does charge the want of a licence ; and therefore the state must prove it. It is true, there is a known distinction, where an exception is embraced in the enacting clause of a statute, and where it comes in by a proviso, or by distinct enactment. . In the former case, the indictment must allege, as here, that the defendant is not within the exception, because the negatives are descriptive of the offence ; tho’ in the latter it may be silent on that point, and the justification or excuse must be adduced in…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Speas v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Meredith v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- State v. . FalknerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- State v. FalknerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- State v. . GlennSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.