Legal Opinion

State v. . Carpenter

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 24, 1939PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClabksoN, J.

We think tbe evidence plenary and sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury tbat tbe defendants bad in their possession “blind-tiger,” or “boot-leg” liquor, contrary to law.

Public Laws of N. C., Extra Session, 1923, chap. 1 (known as tbe “Turlington Act”) is, in part:

“Sec. 1. When used in this act — (1) Tbe word liquor’ or tbe phrase Intoxicating liquor’ shall be construed to include alcohol, brandy, whiskey, rum, gin, beer, ale, porter, and wine, and in addition thereto any spirituous, vinous, malt, or fermented liquors, liquids, and compounds, wbetbe.r medicated, proprietary, patented, or not,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. . HardySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  2. State v. . LangleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. State v. . LockeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. SimmonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. D & W, INC. v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. State v. BarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  4. State v. MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  5. State v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

6 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