{
  "id": 11272251,
  "name": "STATE v. LLOYD BAKER, MANS GASPERSON, and HARRY GASPERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Baker",
  "decision_date": "1922-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "752",
  "last_page": "753",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 N.C. 752"
    }
  ],
  "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": "182 N. C., 911",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659569
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0911-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 1927,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.431,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23913961779238868
    },
    "sha256": "2ba62699d4c9a654a22a3af0cd36db53ac72ce1cfdaed6842b8c4f60263a23b5",
    "simhash": "1:ac3c7a2da8f4b0fb",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:19.408476+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. LLOYD BAKER, MANS GASPERSON, and HARRY GASPERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, J.\nTbe defendants\u2019 first and second exceptions are directed to bis Honor\u2019s refusal to grant tbeir motions for judgments as of non-suit, made first at tbe close of tbe State\u2019s evidence and renewed at tbe close of all tbe evidence.\nBobert Gilliam, a witness for tbe State, testified tbat be bad seen all three of tbe defendants personally engaged in tbe operation of an illicit distillery in Buncombe County witbin tbe past two years; tbat, to bis own knowledge, eacb and every one of*tbe said defendants bad done work and taken a part in tbe manufacture of said intoxicating liquors. Tbis evidence, while denied by tbe defendants, was amply sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury. Tbe defendants, having lost before tbe jury, doubtless appealed \u201cto see bow it might strike tbe Court.\u201d\nTbe remaining exceptions, calling in question tbe validity of our State statutes since tbe adoption of tbe XVIII Amendment to tbe Constitution of tbe United States, must Fe overruled on authority of S. v. Campbell, 182 N. C., 911, and cases there cited.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Reynolds, Reynolds & Howell for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. LLOYD BAKER, MANS GASPERSON, and HARRY GASPERSON.\n(Filed 13 December, 1922.)\nIntoxicating Liquor \u2014 Spirituous Liquor \u2014 Evidence\u2014Questions for Jury\u2014 Constitutional Law.\nThe evidence in this case held sufficient on appeal to sustain a verdict convicting, the defendant of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and our State statute on the subject does not contravene the XVIII Amendment to the Federal Constitution.\nAppeal by defendants from Shaw, J., at March Term, 1922, of BUNCOMBE.\nCriminal prosecution, tried upon an indictment charging the defendants with engaging in the manufacture -of. spirituous liquors in violation of the State statutes.\nFrom an adverse verdict and judgment pronounced tbereon, tbe defendants appealed.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nReynolds, Reynolds & Howell for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0752-01",
  "first_page_order": 808,
  "last_page_order": 809
}