{
  "id": 8662243,
  "name": "STATE v. TUCKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tucker",
  "decision_date": "1900-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "539",
  "last_page": "540",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. 539"
    }
  ],
  "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": "74 N. C., 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682333
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0230-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1991,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.419,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20770226372271125
    },
    "sha256": "cf52ee8aa034541a004dbf383660d644c60a5003df3d55d1c2a75188c313deae",
    "simhash": "1:cf54b785a2e20f0f",
    "word_count": 340
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:22.932964+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. TUCKER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eaxeclotii, C. J.\nThe defendant stands indicted for selling unlawfully and wilfully \u201cto one Will Smith a quantity of spirituous liquors by the measure of a gallon,\u201d etc., with out license so to sell spirituous liquors. The \u201ccase\u201d sent to this Court states that the State\u2019s evidence was that the defendant came to town with about four gallons of whiskey, and that \u201che sold one of the witnesses for the State a gallon\u201d at the price, etc., and offered the remainder for sale to \u201csaid witness, or to any other person.\u201d The defendant asked the Court to charge that there was no evidence to go to- the jury for the conviction of the defendant, which was refused. The Count instructed the jury'that, if they believed the evidence, to render a verdict of guilty. There was error. There is no evidence that defendant sold liquor to Will Smith, as alleged in the bill of indictment, \u201cbut to one of the witnesses for the State,\u201d and there were the names of four witnesses indorsed on the bill. The defendant\u2019s plea was not guilty. As the State alleged a sale to Will Smith, it was incumbent on the State to prove a sale to Will Smith. Defendant also moved in arrest, because the State failed to prove a sale to- anyone within the statutory limit. State v. Carpenter, 74 N. C., 230.\nVenire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eaxeclotii, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Zeb. V. Walser, Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "Montgomery & Crowell, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. TUCKER.\n(November 20, 1900.)\nIndictment \u2014 Variance\u2014Allegation and Proof \u2014 Evidence\u2014 Intoxicating Liquors \u2014 Criminal Law.\nWhere an indictment charges a sale of intoxicating liquors to Will Smith, it is incumbent on the State to prove a sale to him.\nINDICTMENT against John Tucker for selling intoxicating liquors without license, heard by Judge Thomas J. Shaw and a jury, at April Term, 1900, of Cabarrus Superior Court. On the back of the indictment was the following endorsement: Witnesses \u2014 Will Smith, J. E. Harris, Jno. Cruse, Will Propst.\nFrom verdict of guilty and judgment, the defendant appealed.\nZeb. V. Walser, Attorney-General, for the State.\nMontgomery & Crowell, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0539-01",
  "first_page_order": 569,
  "last_page_order": 570
}