{
  "id": 8651591,
  "name": "THE STATE v. JOHN C. DEATON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Deaton",
  "decision_date": "1888-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "728",
  "last_page": "730",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 N.C. 728"
    }
  ],
  "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": "100 N. C., 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651008
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/100/0474-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 3753,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30325976533767024
    },
    "sha256": "0b3a07fd8b83d64845e9b831bac53ed778dcb69122dfc64dc23c4a45c84a67ef",
    "simhash": "1:bad4cf72c85d5c9f",
    "word_count": 628
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:51:11.114152+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. JOHN C. DEATON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Merrimon, J.\n(after stating the case.) The general statute \u2018{The Code, \u00a71076) provides that \u201cif any person shall retail spirituous liquors by the smaj.1 measure in any other manner \u25a0than is prescribed by law, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, in the discretion of the Court.\u201d The\u2022 statutes, commonly called \u201crevenue laws \u201d (Acts 1885. ch. 175; Acts 1887, ch. 135), do not change or modify the general statutory provisions above recited; they regulate the sale of spirituous and other liquors, and prescribe that such liquors shall not be sold in certain specified quantities, until and unless the person who desires to -sell shall first have obtained a license in the way prescribed, authorizing him to sell the same; but they do not prescribe the criminal offence of selling such liquors without a license\u2014 that is done by the statutory provision first above recited. And, plainly, the Superior Court has jurisdiction of such offence, because the punishment is fine or imprisonment\u2014 one or both \u2014 in the discretion of the Court. A Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction of criminal offences only \u201c where the punishment prescribed by law shall not exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for thirty days.\u201d 1 he Code, \u00a7892.\nNow the statute (Acts 1885, ch. 175, \u00a7 34), among other \u2022things, provides that \u201c every person, company or firm for selling spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, or medicated bitters, shall pay a licens\u201d tax quarterly, in advance, on the first day of January, April, July and October, as follows: Eirst, for selling in quantities less than a quart, twenty dollars,\u201d &c.; and further, that \u201c every person, company or firm wishing to retail liquors in quantities less than five gallons, \u25a0shall apply to the Board of County Commissioners for an \u2022order to the Sheriff to issue a license, stating the place at which it is proposed to conduct the business,\u201d &c. The defendant is indicted under the statute (The Code, \u00a7 1076) above-cited, for selling spirituous liquors without obtaining such license. His contention that the subsequent statute (Acts. 1887, ch. 135, \u00a7 45) repealed that just mentioned, is wholly unfounded; and more particularly, it does not in any way affect the general statute under which he is indicted. State v. Sutton, 100 N. C., 474. He is indicted under the latter statute for a violation of the revenue law.\nThere is no error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Merrimon, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for tire State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. JOHN C. DEATON.\nLiquor Selling \u2014 Statute\u2014Jurisdiction\u2014 Taxation.\n1. The provisions in the \u201c Revenue Laws \u201d of 1885 and 1887, regulating the rate of taxation and the method by which licenses may issue for the sale of liquors, did not repeal or suspend the operation of the general statute (The Code, \u00a7 1076) making it a misdemeanor to retail such liquors without a license. Nor did the Revenue Act of 1887 repeal that of 1885 in respect to the penalties and punishments therein imposed.\n3. The Superior Court has jurisdiction of the offence of retailing spirituous liquors without license.\nThis is a CRIMINAL action, tried before Avery, J, at Spring Term, 1888, of MontgoMerv Superior Court.\nThe defendant is indicted for retailing spirituous liquors by a measure less than a quart in the month of March, 1886, without having obtained a license so to do, as required by the statute (Acts 1885, ch. 175, \u00a7 34). lie insisted that the statute under which be was indicted was repealed by the subsequent statute (Acts 18S7, ch. 132, \u00a745), and therefore he could not be convicted. He further contended that the Superior Court had not jurisdiction.\nThere was a verdict of guilty, and judgment accordingly against the defendant, from which he appealed.\nThe Attorney General, for tire State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0728-01",
  "first_page_order": 760,
  "last_page_order": 762
}