State v. Southern Express Co., 168 N.C. 207 (1914)

Dec. 16, 1914 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

168 N.C. 207

STATE v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY.

(Filed 16 December, 1914.)

Intoxicating Liquors — Carriers — Transportation Forbidden — Lawful Use — „ Interpretation of Statutes.

Tbe transportation by tbe carrier of intoxicating liquors bito tbe county of Burke, where such is prohibited for certain purposes, and delivering it to tbe consignee for bis private use, will not make tbe carrier guilty of the offense created by tbe statute, tbe act not prohibiting its importation for personal use. Public Laws 1907, cbs. 24 and 806.

Appeal by the State from Justice, J., at August Term, 1914, of Buree.

The defendant was tried in the Superior Court upon an appeal from the police court upon a warrant charging it with delivering intoxicating liquors to one J. W. Garrison in Burke County in violation of chapters 24 and 806 of the Public Laws of 1907,- which prohibits the importation of intoxicating liquors into that county for certain purposes. The ease was heard on a special verdict. The judge of the Superior Court pronounced the defendant not guilty upon the special verdict.

The State excepted to the ruling of the court, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Attorney-General Biclcett and, Assistant Attorney-General Calvert for the State.

S. J. Ervin, B. C. Allison for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Tbe verdict in part states that tbe liquor was ordered and shipped from tbe city of Roanoke in tbe State of Virginia, and “That tbe said spirituous liquors were ordered by tbe said John W. Garrison of tbe said dealer at Roanoke for tbe personal private use of tbe said John W. Garrison, and were not intended for sale or other unlawful use, and were not in fact sold, but were used and consumed by tbe said Garrison himself.”

Tbe statute under which tbe defendant is indicted is substantially tbe same ás tbe one construed in Express Co. v. High Point, 167 N. C., 103. In bis brief tbe learned Attorney-General admits that on tbe authority of that case and under tbe construction placed upon that, a similar statute, tbe -judgment of tbe Superior Court was correct.

Affirmed.