Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Calcutt

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 21, 1941Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partClabksoN, J.

I concur on the first count and dissent on the second count-.'

The defendant was indicted under the following bill of indictment:

“No. 3236 — State v. Joseph Calcutt, trading as Vending Machine Company. Illegal Possession Slot Machines, which said Bill of Indictment is in words and figures as follows, to-wit :
“State of North Carolina' — 'Superior Court. Wake County — November Term, A. D., 1940.
*550“The Jurors for the State, upon their oath present, That Joseph Cal-cutt, Individually, and Joseph Calcutt, trading as Tending Machine Company of Fayetteville, N. C., late of the County of Wake, on the…

2Cases cited63 opinions

  1. State v. EverittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  2. State v. . HumphriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. State v. . TooleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  4. State v. . DriverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  5. State v. . DowdySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907

58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API