{
  "id": 8651209,
  "name": "STATE v. A. R. HOLLINGSWORTH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hollingsworth",
  "decision_date": "1888-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "535",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 N.C. 535"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 D. & B., 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "D. & B.,",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 D. & B., 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "D. & B.,",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N. C., 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650554
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/97/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 810",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698797
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0810-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 341,
    "char_count": 6486,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3814705224942288e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6406253800897272
    },
    "sha256": "20bb83085670adf521fdeff64d43e4210848ac55cf8d8e064879a4b32fefd29f",
    "simhash": "1:8eab4cf9e6b6343e",
    "word_count": 1125
  },
  "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. A. R. HOLLINGSWORTH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Davis, J.,\n(after stating the facts). 1. The first exception is to the refusal of his Honor to quash the indictment. There is no error in this. The indorsements on the bill form no part of the indictment, and it has been held that the Act of 1879, The Code, \u00a7 1742, requiring the foreman of the grand jury, when the oath is administered by him, to mark on the bill the names of the witnesses sworn and examined before the jury, is merely directory, and a non-compliance therewith is no ground for quashing the indictment. State v. Hines, 84 N. C., 810. It constitutes neither ground for a motion to quash nor in arrest of judgment. State v. Sheppard, 97 N. C., 401; State v. Baldwin, 1 D. & B., 195; State v. Roberts, 2 D. & B., 540; The Code, \u00a7 1183.\n2. The second exception is to the jurisdiction of the Court. This is based upon a misapprehension as to the misdemeanor charged.\nThe penalties imposed by the Revenue Acts of 1887, (ch. 135, \u00a7 35,) are for violations of the revenue law, in practicing the trades or professions, or using the privileges taxed by that act, (among them dealing in liquors,) without first paying the tax and obtaining the license, and as these do not exceed fifty'- dollars fine, or imprisonment for more than thirty days, the Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction; but chapter 417, Acts of 1887, makes it unlawful for any person to \u201c sell any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors within two miles of * * * Mud Creek Baptist Church, * * * in Henderson County; \u201d it enacts further, that the \u201c person or persons so offending, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined and imprisoned, at the discretion of the Court.\u201d This is the statute under which the' defendant is indicted, and the Court has jurisdiction.\n3. The third exception is to the charge of his Honor, as to the effect of the vote of the town of Hendersonville, at the election in June, 1887, upon local option. If there were any doubt as to the correctness of his Honor\u2019s charge, it is settled by the Local Option Act, under which the election was held, by which it is expressly provided, that the election shall not \u201c affect localities in which the sale of spirituous liquors are prohibited by law.\u201d The Code, \u00a7 3116. \u201c Within two miles of Mud Creek Baptist Church,\u201d is a locality within which the sale of spirituous liquors is \u201cprohibited by law,\u201d and it is therefore within the proviso of the Local Option Act, and there was no error in his Honor\u2019s charge.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Davis, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General and Mr. John Devereux, Jr., for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. A. R. HOLLINGSWORTH.\nIndictment \u2014 Finding the Bill \u2014 Jurisdiction\u2014Selling Spirituous Liquors \u2014 Local Option Election.\n1. The statute, Code, \u00a7 1742, requiring the foreman of the Grand Jury to mark on the bill the names of witnesses sworn and examined, is directory, and its not appearing by endorsement on a bill that the only witness had been sworn and examined, is no ground for quashing the indictment or arresting the judgment.\n2. Under Chap. 417, Acts of 1887, the Superior Court of the County has jurisdiction of an indictment against one who sold spirituous liquors, &c., within two miles of either of the places in Henderson County named in the Act.\n8. A local option election, in favor of license, in a town situate within two miles of a locality where the sale of spirituous liquors is prohibited by law, does not have the effect to abrogate that law {Gode, % 3116).\nThe defendant and one Allen were indicted for unlawfully selling spirituous liquors, and tried before Merrimon, J., at the Spring Term, 1888, of the Superior Court of HeN-dersoN County.\nThe indictment contains two counts \u2014 the first for retailing without license; and the second for unlawfully selling spirituous liquors within two miles of Mud Creek Baptist Church, contrary to the statute.\nWhen the case was called for trial, and before the jury was empaneled, the defendant moved to quash the indictment, \u201cupon the ground that it did not appear from any \u25a0endorsement upon the bill, that the only witness, J. A. Bry-son, had been sworn or examined before the grand jury.\u201d\nIt did appear that the grand jury had returned said bill in open Court as \u201ca true bill,\u201d and the name of the witness was endorsed on the back of the bill, and a record of said bill and return was duly made by the Clerk. The motion was overruled, and the defendants excepted.\nDefendants then moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and insisted that the Revenue Act of 1887 conferred jurisdiction upon Courts of Justices of the Peace, in all cases where liquors are retailed without license, in quantities less than a quart. Motion overruled, and defendants excepted.\nThe Solicitor abandoned, in effect, entered a nol. pros, to the first count, and the defendants then entered the plea of not guilty, and were tried upon the second count alone.\nIt was in evidence, that the defendants had sold liquor within three months prior to the trial (which was the term of the Court at which defendants were indicted) in the town of Hendersonville, in a building occupied by them, on main street, near the post-office.\nIt was also in evidence, \u201c by surface measurement,\u201d a part of the town of Hendersonville, including the building where the defendants sold, was within two miles of Mud Creek Baptist Church.\nIt was also in evidence, on the part of the defendants, that on the first Monday in June, 1887, an election was held, under the Local Option Act, in the town of Hendersonville, at which election a majority of the qualified voters voted for \u201c License.\u201d\nIt was insisted on behalf of the defendants, \u201c that being charged with selling spirituous liquors only within two miles of Mud Creek Baptist Church, it was no longer necessary for them to exhibit a license from the Sheriff of the county, but only to show, that under the provisions of the Local Option Act, an election had been held in the town of Henderson-ville, and that the result of that election was a majority \u201cFor license;\u201d that the jury should, therefore, assume that license had issued. His Honor declined to so charge the jury, but charged that a sale of spirituous liquors within 'two miles of Mud Creek Baptist Church, if it included a portion or all of the town of Hendersonville, would make the defendants guilty. Defendants excepted.\nThere was a verdict of guilty as to Hollingsworth \u2014 not guilty as to Allen. Defendant Hollingsworth moved for new trial; motion refused; judgment and appeal.\nAttorney General and Mr. John Devereux, Jr., for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0535-01",
  "first_page_order": 559,
  "last_page_order": 562
}