{ "id": 8662821, "name": "STATE v. BRADLEY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bradley", "decision_date": "1903-05-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "1060", "last_page": "1061", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "132 N.C. 1060" } ], "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": "13 N. C., 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276557 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/13/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 N. C., 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650303 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/103/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N. C., 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652009 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/111/0661-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N. C., 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683396 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/89/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 918", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652455 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0918-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 N. C., 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275918 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/98/0668-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 257, "char_count": 3631, "ocr_confidence": 0.501, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.458987634093714e-08, "percentile": 0.44486377391114307 }, "sha256": "adee12b3f275c7d98abd2d50c2874583c8c0bb0bd4286dcc3e3e69e5723bc72e", "simhash": "1:3c476725659a8c15", "word_count": 646 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:22:40.266480+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. BRADLEY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Connor, J.\nThe defendant was charged in the usual form of indictment with retailing without license \u201ca quantity of spirituous liquor by small measure, to-wit, by the measure of a pint.\u201d The jury returned for a special verdict \u201cthat the defendant sold one quart of whiskey to J. B. Constand, in Polk County, about one year prior to the finding of the bill, for which said Constand in Polk County paid the defendant thirty cents.. If upon the above facts the court be of the opinion that the defendant is guilty, the jury so' find; otherwise, not guilty.\u201d\nHis Honor held that the defendant was not guilty and so adjudged. The Solicitor for the State appealed.\nWe are of the opinion 'that bis Honor could not have adjudged the defendant guilty upon the special verdict, and that be could not render any judgment thereon. The offense charged is selling liquor without having a license to do so. It is true that it has been the settled law in this State for more than fifty years that \u201cproof of the existence of a license to. retail must come from the defendant.\u201d State v. Emery, 98 N. C., 668; and upon proof of sale, in the absence of sncb proof, tbe jury must find tbe defendant guilty.\nIf, however, the jury shall, instead of returning a general verdict, find a special verdict, they should find every fact, if it exists, either by proof or presumption, essential to tbe defendants guilt, otherwise the court should set tbe finding aside and direct a venire de novo. State v. Bloodworth, 94 N. C., 918; State v. Bray, 89 N. C., 480; State v. Corporation, 111 N. C., 661; State v. Oakley, 103 N. C., 408.\nThe bill of indictment is drawn under the provisions of Section 1016 of The Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to sell \u201cspirituous liquor by the small measure in any other man: ner than is prescribed by law.\u201d The charge is that the defendant sold \u201cby the measure of a pint.\u201d It may, if the allegations are found to be true, be sustained either under that section or Section 103, Chapter 9, Laws 1901. Section 10 of this statute, being the Revenue Law of that year, which prescribes : \u201cEvery person . . . selling spirituous liquors . . . shall pay a license tax semi-annually on the first days of January and July as follows : First, for selling in quantities of five gallons or less, fifty dollars for each six months; second, for selling in quantities of five gallons or more, one hundred dollars for each six months,\u201d etc. Section 103 makes it a misdemeanor to practice any trade or profession or use any franchise without having paid the tax and obtained a license as required, etc. It would seem that in view of the new classification of dealers in spirituous liquors, a sale of five gallons or less would be by small measure. This is the principle of construction adopted in State v. Shaw, 13 N. C., 198. We have said this much because we presume the appeal is taken for the purpose of having our opinion on the question.\nFor the defect in the special verdict there must be a\nVenire de Novo.", "type": "majority", "author": "Connor, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.", "J. E. Shipman, for the defendant" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. BRADLEY.\n(Filed May 12, 1903.)\nINTOXICATING LIQUORS \u2014 Retailing\u2014Special Verdict \u2014 Verdict\u2014The Code, Sec. 1076 \u2014 Acts 1901, Oh. 9, Secs. 70, 103.\nIn a prosecution for retailing liquor without a license, a special verdict which fails to find that the defendant did not have a license to sell is not sufficient to sustain a judgment of guilty.\nINdictmeNt against Eli Bradley, Jr., beard by Judge E. B. Jones, at Spring Term, 1903, of the Superior Court of Polk County. Prom a judgment of not guilty on a special verdict, the State appealed.\nRobert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nJ. E. Shipman, for the defendant" }, "file_name": "1060-01", "first_page_order": 1110, "last_page_order": 1111 }