State v. . Wray
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Indictment, for retailing spirituous liquors without a license, tried at the Fall Term, 18>74, of Clbaveland ¡Superior Court, before his Honor; Sehenelc, J. The facts, as found by the jury, before whom the case was tried in the Court below, are fully stated in the opinion delivered by Justice Settle.
Read the full summary
Indictment, for retailing spirituous liquors without a license, tried at the Fall Term, 18>74, of Clbaveland ¡Superior Court, before his Honor; Sehenelc, J. The facts, as found by the jury, before whom the case was tried in the Court below, are fully stated in the opinion delivered by Justice Settle. His Honor being of opinion -from the facts found, that the defendants had committed no indictable ofíence, gave judgment accordingly; from which judgment of acquittal, the Solicitor for the State appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtSettle, J.
The defendants being indicted for retailing spirituous liquors, without a license so to do, the jury rendered the following special verdict; “The defendants were druggists and partners in the town of Shelby, and kept medicines for sale, but had no license to retail spirituous liquors. In the montn of July, 1872, Dr. O. P. Gardner, a practising physician in the town of Shelby, prescribed the use of a half pint of French brandy for Mrs. Durham, the wife of the witness, Hill Durham, and directed the witness to go to the defendants for it. That Dr. Gardner also , went*,to the .defendants and…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. . DownsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- State v. . McBrayerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Randall v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Chipman v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1898
- State v. McCanceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.