State v. . Hicks
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT, for unlawfully selling spirituous liquors, tried before Merrimon, J., at Spring Term, 1888, of the Superior' Court of Durham County. The defendant was indicted for selling spirituous liquors on Sunday. The indictment was in proper form, and there-was a verdict of guilty.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT, for unlawfully selling spirituous liquors, tried before Merrimon, J., at Spring Term, 1888, of the Superior' Court of Durham County. The defendant was indicted for selling spirituous liquors on Sunday. The indictment was in proper form, and there-was a verdict of guilty. Thereupon, “the Solicitor for the State, praying the judgment of the Court on the verdict rendered, it is ordered by the Court that the defendant, W. H. Hicks, be imprisoned' at hard labor on the public roads for a term of sixty days,, and that he pay a fine of $25 and the costs.” From this judgment the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
(after stating the case.) We have not been-favored with an argument for the defendant, and no error is assigned in the record, but it is suggested that the exception •may be to so much of the judgment as imposes imprisonment “at hard labor on the public roads for a term of sixty days."
By section 1117 of The Code, under which the defendant was indicted and convicted, it is declared that, “if any person shall sell spirituous or malt or other intoxicating liquors on Sunday * * * * * the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by fine or imprison.-ment, or both, in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. . NorwoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. Farrington.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- State v. . HambySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- State v. . BushSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- State v. . SpencerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- State v. HaynieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.