{
  "id": 8651008,
  "name": "STATE v. FREELAND SUTTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sutton",
  "decision_date": "1888-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "474",
  "last_page": "476",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 N.C. 474"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "88 N. C., 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683324
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0499-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 5308,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.6604410855822154e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8904974768799262
    },
    "sha256": "c551d858314f304be8bd5519064716ed6c07568e203f2a86f92e0ac131539e85",
    "simhash": "1:bf4f8a2ba47b963d",
    "word_count": 940
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:59:04.640355+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. FREELAND SUTTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Davis, J.\nThe indictment charges that the defendant \u201cto one W. F. Morton, spirituous liquors by the measure less-than a gallon, to-wit: by the quart, unlawfully did sell * * * * not having then and there a license to sell, sp\u00edritu\u00f3us liquors by the measure aforesaid, contrary,\" etc.\nThe jury returned the following special verdict: \u201cThat about the middle of the summer of 1886, the defendant sold spirituous liquors by the quart and,.prior to this time, by the pint and 'quart, within two\u2019 years- prior to the beginning of this inquisition, to W. F.. Morton ; that the defendant at the time of such sales, was agent of Dan Sutton, a distiller of spirituous liquors, whose distillery was in operation 300-yards from the place of selling, a public road intervening; that the distillery of the said Sutton was situated on an acre of land, leased by the said Dan Sutton for the purpose, and had been run off and the boundaries ascertained by a survey, and that the liquor sold was manufactured at said distillery; that the land on which the grocery, where the said sales were made 300 yards dowm the road, was a separate tract of land, but adjoining, belonging to the defendant, but mortgaged for five years to Dan Sutton, who was in possession, though not paying nor under any agreement to pay rent.\u201d\nThe jury find the defendant guilty or not guilty, as the Court may be of opinion upon the facts.\n\u201cUpon this special verdict, his Honor adjudges the defendant guilty. Defendant moves in arrest of judgment for that the Act under which the defendant was indicted has been repealed. Motion allowed. Judgment suspended (arrested).\u201d Appeal by the State.\nThe repealing section in the Act of 1887, (Ch. 135, \u00a7 45,) relied on by the defendant, relates to and repeals the laws \u201cimposing taxes\u201d on the subjects \u201crevised,\u201d and does not-relate to the penalties imposed for a violation of the Revenue Laws. They are not embraced in the language of the repealing section, and a repeal by implication is not favored. Jones v. Insurance Co., 88 N. C., 499. The proviso in\" the repealing section shows the intended scope and purpose of it.\nBut if it were otherwise, simultaneous with the repealing section, the penalties for a violation of the provisions of the revenue law are enacted in substantially the language of the Act of 1885, to make these apply to the provisions of the Act of 1887. Even if it were a repeal of the Act of 1885, as insisted by the defendant, \u201cif the Legislature enacts a law in the terms of a former one, and at the same time repeals the former, this amounts to a re-affirmance of the former law, which it does not, in legal contemplation, repeal. The provision is continued without any intermission.\u201d Bishop on Statutory Crimes, \u00a7 181.\nIt will be observed that the defendant is indicted for selling spirituous liquors \u201c by the measure less than a gallon, to-wit: by the quart.\u201d The Act of 1885, Ch. 175, \u00a7 34, prohibits the sale of liquors, etc., in \u201c quantities less than a quart,\u201d without a license, and the proviso in reference to a sale at the plac\u00e9 of manufacture, by the distiller, or the products of \u2022one\u2019s own farm, does not apply to sales of less than a quart, but does apply to sales in quantities of one quart or more.\nThe Act of 1887, ch. 135, \u00a7 31, excludes from the benefits \u2022of the proviso sales \u201cin quantities of one quart or less.\u201d The indictment seems to have been drawn under the Act of 1887, but, by the finding of the jury, the sale was before the passage of that Act, \u2014 \u201c about the middle of the summer of 1886,\u201d and whether drawn under the one or the other, it is fatally defective, for the reasons stated in State v. Hazell, ante 471.\nUpon this ground, there would have been no error in \u2022\u25a0arresting the judgment.\nAffirmed.\u2019",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Davis, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. FREELAND SUTTON.\nSpirituous Liquors; indictment for sale of \u2014 L. 1885, ch. 175, \u00a7 34, L. 1887, ch. 185, \u00a7\u00a7 31, 45 \u2014 Repeal of Criminal Statute ; effect of \u2014 Repeal by implication.\n1. Section 45, ch. 135, L. 1887, repeals the laws \u201cimposing taxes\u201d on the subjects \u201crevised,\u201d but does not repeal the penalties imposed for a ' violation of the Revenue Laws.\n2. The proviso in \u00a7 34, ch. 175, L. 1885, in reference to sale of liquor by-distillers, &c., applies to sales of one quart or more, but not to sales of less than a quart. Sales \u201cin quantities of one quart or less,\u201d are excluded from the benefits of the proviso in \u00a7 31, ch. 135, L. 1887,\n3. An indictment, charging that defendant unlawfully sold to A B, \u201c spirituous liquors by the measure less than a gallon, to-wit: by the quart * * \" not having license to sell spirituous liquors by the measure aforesaid,\u201d is fatally defective, both under the laws of 1885, ch. 175, and the laws of 1887, ch. 135,. for reasons given in State v. Hazed, ante.\n4. If the Legislature enacts a law in the terms of a former law, and at the same time repeals the former, this amounts, in law, to a re-af-firmance, and not a repeal, of such law; and it continues in force for all purposes without intermission. A repeal of a statute by implication is not favored by the Courts.\nIndictmekt for selling spirituous liquors without license, tried before Gilmer, J., at Spring Term, 1888, of Alamance Superior Court.\nThe facts appear in the opinion.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0474-01",
  "first_page_order": 498,
  "last_page_order": 500
}