{ "id": 8654351, "name": "STATE v. ESLEY EDMONDS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Edmonds", "decision_date": "1923-12-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "623", "last_page": "624", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "186 N.C. 623" } ], "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": "184 N. C., 762", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272294 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0762-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 Fed., 459", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6733703 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/264/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "274 Fed., 245", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6737146 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/274/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 Fed., 397", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6737218 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/268/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 N. C., 674", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657492 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0674-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 N. C., 699", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655997 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/151/0699-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 239, "char_count": 3537, "ocr_confidence": 0.476, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20762542526610625 }, "sha256": "d8270d6e395571033a6be2f9444cd76fd84f20e71f6fbacbbe2ccddefb68fa79", "simhash": "1:76f7ead84cd46f09", "word_count": 588 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. ESLEY EDMONDS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "S4aoy, J.\nDefendant moved to set aside tbe verdict because, be alleges, it was against tbe overwhelming weight of tbe evidence. Motion overruled and exception. Tbe granting of a new trial in a criminal prosecution, or its refusal, on tbe. ground tbat tbe verdict is contrary to tbe weight of tbe evidence, is discretionary with tbe trial court and not reviewable on appeal. S. v. Hancock, 151 N. C., 699.\nDefendant moved in arrest of judgment because be was indicted under tbe old law, and tbe \u201cTurlington Act\u201d went into effect tbe very day he was. tried and convicted. This exception is fully met by what was said in S. v. Foster, 185 N. C., 674.\nAs indicated by its title, \u201cAn Act to Make tbe State Law Conform to tbe National Law in Relation to Intoxicating Liquors,\u201d chapter 1, Public Laws 1923, tbe purpose of tbe Legislature, in tbe passage of tbe Turlington Act, was to make tbe State law conform to tbe National law on tbe subject of prohibition.\u2019 Tbe two statutes, as now written, contain, in tbe main, exactly similar or practically similar provisions. And tbe chief purpose of each enactment is to prohibit and, as far as possible, to prevent, except as authorized by each statute, tbe manufacture, sale and transportation, for beverage purposes, of any and every kind of \u201cintoxicating liquor\u201d; and this is expressly \"defined to be any spirituous, vinous, malt or fermented liquor or liquid, fit for use for beverage purposes and containing onerbalf of one per centum or more of alcohol. U. S. v. Dodson, 268 Fed., 397. Accordingly, in each statute, Federal and State, tbe courts are enjoined to give a liberal construction to all tbe provisions of tbe act, to tbe end tbat tbe use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented. Rose v. United States, 274 Fed., 245; U. S. v. Crossen, 264 Fed., 459. This is \u201cappropriate legislation,\u201d calculated to aid in tbe enforcement of tbe Eighteenth Amendment to tbe Constitution of tbe United States, and-hence it must be regarded by us as tbe established public policy on tbe subject. S. v. Harrison, 184 N. C., 762.\nThere is no error appearing on tbe record.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "S4aoy, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.", "Reynolds, Reynolds & Howell for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. ESLEY EDMONDS.\n(Filed 12 December, 1923.)\n1. Courts \u2014 Discretion\u2014Verdict Set Aside \u2014 Criminal Law.\nTbe granting or refusal to set aside a verdict by tbe trial judge in a criminal prosecution on tbe ground that tbe verdict is contrary to tbe weight of tbe evidence is discretionary with him, and not reviewable on appeal.\n21 Intoxicating Liquor \u2014 Spirituous Liquor \u2014 Statutes\u2014Federal Statutes\u2014 Turlington Act \u2014 Defenses.\nThe legislative purpose in tbe enactment of chapter 1, Public Laws of 1923 (Turlington Act), was to make tbe State statutes in tbe matter of unlawful manufacture or sale and transportation of intoxicating liquor, etc., conform to tbe Federal statute on the subject, and both are liberally construed to prevent, as a matter of public policy, tbe use of intoxicating liquor, as defined, for beverage purposes; and tbe defense is untenable that tbe defendant should not be convicted of violating our prohibition law because tbe Turlington Act became effective on tbe day he was tried\u00bb in tbe Superior Court.\nAppeal by defendant from Bryson, J., at February Term, 1923, of MADISON.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant with violations of the prohibition law.\nFrom a conviction and judgment pronounced thereon, defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nReynolds, Reynolds & Howell for defendant." }, "file_name": "0623-01", "first_page_order": 687, "last_page_order": 688 }