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
- State v. EverittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- State v. . HumphriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- State v. . TooleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. . DriverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
- State v. . DowdySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.