#### STATE v. MARION COBB.

(Filed 23 May, 1951.)

Criminal Law § 81c (4)—

Where but one sentence is imposed upon a general verdict of guilty, and there is no error in respect to one of the counts, error relating to the other counts cannot be prejudicial.

Appeal by defendant from Sharp, Special Judge, at January Term, 1951, of Gtjileoed — -High Point Division.

Criminal prosecution upon warrant issued out of Municipal Court of the City of High Point, heard in Superior Court, on appeal thereto, on amended warrant charging that defendant did unlawfully (1) “barter, sell, give away, furnish, deliver, exchange, and otherwise dispose of” non-tax-paid intoxicating liquors, (2) “transport and import” nontax-paid intoxicating liquors, (3) “purchase, receive, have on hand and possess ... 34 gallons” of nontax-paid liquors, against the statute in such eases made and provided, etc.

Upon trial in Superior Court, the State offered evidence. Defendant offered none. Motions of defendant, aptly made, for judgment as of nonsuit on each count were denied. Defendant excepted. The court sub*648mitted tbe case to tbe jury only on tbe third count. Tbe jury returned tbis verdict: “Defendant is guilty as charged.”

Judgment: Confinement in tbe common jail of Guilford County and assigned to work under tbe supervision of tbe State Highway and Public Works Commission for a period of twelve (12) months.

Defendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.

Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, and Walter F. Brinkley, Member of Staff, for the State.

Gold, McAnally •& Gold for defendant, appellant.

Per Curiam.

Defendant assigns as error tbe ruling of tbe trial court in denying bis motions for judgment as of nonsuit on each count, and to tbe failure of tbe court to charge on each count. Manifestly, tbe evidence offered upon tbe trial below is sufficient to support a verdict of guilty on tbe third count. And tbe charge on tbis count appears to be proper. However, tbe verdict is general, and tbe judgment imposes only one sentence. Therefore, tbe judgment is affirmed on authority of S. v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738, 40 S.E. 2d 363.

No error.