Legal Opinion

State v. . Mull

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 4, 1927PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: The fact situation, out of which the law of this case arises, especially when viewed in the light of the verdict, is different from any heretofore presented for our consideration.

The eighth count in the bill of indictment is bad, and may be disregarded. It was said in S. v. Hammond, 188 N. C., 602, that the mere receipt of liquor, in one’s home, for a lawful purpose, is not forbidden by any proper construction of the statute. The word “receive” is nowhere used in the statute; hence, the verdict on the eighth count is apparently without warrant of law.

The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. . SigmonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. State v. . MeyersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  3. State v. . HammondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  4. State v. . McAllisterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  2. State v. . HardySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  3. State v. . LassiterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  4. State v. . DowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  5. State v. . HickeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

3 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