State v. Spaugh.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT against Arthur Spaugh and J. D. Beckel, heard by Judge H. B. Sta/rbuck and a jury, at May Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Eoesyth County. These defendants were separately indicted under sections 51 and 11 of Chapter 11, of the Public Laws of 1899. The cases were consolidated by consent, upon motion of the Solicitor.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT against Arthur Spaugh and J. D. Beckel, heard by Judge H. B. Sta/rbuck and a jury, at May Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Eoesyth County. These defendants were separately indicted under sections 51 and 11 of Chapter 11, of the Public Laws of 1899. The cases were consolidated by consent, upon motion of the Solicitor. Section 51 of said act is as follows: “On every individual or firm, or his or their agents, engaged in the business of buying and selling fresh meats from offices, stores, stalls or vehicles, an annual license tax as follows: * * * in- cities or towns of less than…
1Opinion of the Court
Douglas, J.,
after stating the facts. We think there was error in the charge of his Honor. The evidence was practically without contradiction, and the defendants should have been acquitted if the jury believed their evidence, which fully- brought them within the exception, if, indeed, the burden of proof rested upon them. The State contends (1) that the word “product,” as applied to a farm, does not include live stock; and (2) that if it does include live stock, it ap-' plies only to such as were' “produced” or dropped upon the farm, natives, so to speak.
Whatever may be the strict meaning of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Trustees of Rochester v. PettingerNew York Supreme Court · 1837
3Cited by3 opinions
- Leonard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Leonard v. . Maxwell, Comr. of RevenueSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- State v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917