State v. . Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Drummers — License•—•Intent. INDICTMENT tried before Avery, Judge, and a jury, at Fall Term, 1885, of the Superior Court of Bubke county.
Read the full summary
Drummers — License•—•Intent. INDICTMENT tried before Avery, Judge, and a jury, at Fall Term, 1885, of the Superior Court of Bubke county. The defendant, agent of the mercantile house of Whiteley, Tapscott & Melville, doing business in Baltimore, is charged with violating section twenty-eight of the act to raise revenue, which was ratified and took effect on March 12, 1885, in selling by sample and at wholesale, certain goods specified in the indictment, and without license therefor, on April 16, 1885, to T. T. Daves & Bro., at Morganton in this State. It was in evidence that his principals…
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, C. J.,
(after stating the case). There is no error in the refusal to give the instructions asked for nor in the directions given instead. The facts of the present case as disclosed in the testimony, bring it directly within the ruling and decision made in Lewis v. Dugar, 91 N. C., 16, and render any further discussion useless.
The statute has no retro-active energy, and was in force when the criminal act was committed to which it affixes the penalty. It was not required of the State to prove more than that the forbidden act was intentionally done.
As is said by the Court, where a similar…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. . KingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- State v. . VoightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- Lewis v. . DugarSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- State v. BrackettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. KeleherSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- State v. McLeanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- State v. . CraftSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.