{
  "id": 8626982,
  "name": "STATE v. SAM TILLERY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tillery",
  "decision_date": "1956-03-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "706",
  "last_page": "707",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 706"
    }
  ],
  "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": "52 S.E. 2d 920",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629495
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S.E. 604",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N.C. 278",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599333
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0278-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 S.E. 2d 804",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628134
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0059-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 S.E. 2d 779",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 S.E. 2d 894",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 704",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627507
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0704-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 4698,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.591,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5464356334477838e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6738925705707167
    },
    "sha256": "157f23befcd9eb043f9fc1938731d3c7909a66ba23a84726894ed4c215e6eb75",
    "simhash": "1:978153dab4ca9825",
    "word_count": 739
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. SAM TILLERY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nWhen a warrant or bill of indictment, which charges the unlawful possession and unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, describes the liquor as \u201cnon-tax-paid,\u201d conviction may be had, as the evidence may warrant, either under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, G.S. Ch. 18, Article 3, or under the Turlington Act, G.S. Ch. 18, Article 1. These statutes are construed in pari materia. S. v. Hill, 236 N.C. 704, 73 S.E. 2d 894; S. v. Gibbs, 238 N.C. 258, 77 S.E. 2d 779.\nEven so, when the warrant or bill of indictment describes the liquor as \u201cnon-tax-paid liquor,\u201d these descriptive words identify the liquor referred to therein. S. v. Merritt, 231 N.C. 59, 55 S.E. 2d 804. Here the State limited the accusation to \u201cnon-tax-paid\u201d liquor. Thus, the defendant in effect was furnished a bill of particulars. G.S. 15-143. This limited the evidence to the matters and things stated therein. S. v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604.\nThe testimony of the State\u2019s witness, by way of describing the liquor found when a search was made of defendant\u2019s car on defendant\u2019s premises, consists solely of his statement that \u201cwe opened the trunk of the car and there were six gallons of bootleg whiskey . . .\u201d The witness testified that defendant stated \u201cthat the whiskey was his.\u201d\nThere was no testimony that the container or containers did not \u201cbear either a revenue stamp of the federal government or a stamp of any of the county boards of the State of North Carolina.\u201d Had there been such testimony, it would have constituted prima jade evidence of the violation of G.S. 18-48. The General Assembly provided this rule of evidence to facilitate criminal prosecutions in which it is necessary to prove that the liquor is \u201cnon-tax-paid.\u201d\nThus, the question posed is whether \u201cbootleg whiskey\u201d is sufficient to identify the liquor as \u201cnon-tax-paid.\u201d We are constrained to hold that it is not. While \u201cbootleg whiskey\u201d implies illicit whiskey, it does so in the sense that the possession, possession for sale, transportation, etc., thereof, under the circumstances, is unlawful, whether taxpaid or nontax-paid. The descriptive terms are not synonymous. Hence, the court cannot take judicial notice that \u201cbootleg whiskey\u201d is \u201cnon-tax-paid liquor.\u201d\nThe question posed is similar to that passed upon in S. v. Wolf, 230 N.C. 267, 52 S.E. 2d 920, in which this Court held that the expression \u201cwhite liquor\u201d was insufficient to identify \u201cillegal nontax-paid liquors.\u201d\nThe result is that defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed. Hence, other assignments of error need not be discussed.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bobbitt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Rodman and Assistant Attorney-General McGal-liard for the State.",
      "Weeks & Muse for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. SAM TILLERY.\n(Filed 28 March, 1956.)\n1. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 2\u2014\nWhen the warrant or indictment charges the unlawful possession and unlawful transportation of nontax-paid liquor, defendant may be convicted, as the evidence may warrant, either under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, G.S. 18, Article 3, or the Turlington Act, G.S. 18, Article 1, the statutes being construed in pari materia.\n2. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 9a\u2014\nWhere the warrant charges illegal possession and transportation of nontax-paid liquor, the State is limited to the charges therein set out and must prove that the liquor was nontax-paid.\n3. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 9d\u2014\nWhere, in a prosecution upon a warrant charging unlawful possession and transportation of nontax-paid liquor, the State introduces no evidence that the container or containers did not bear a revenue stamp of the federal government or stamp of any of the county boards of North Carolina, G.S. 18-8, but the only testimony describing the liquor is that it was \u201cbootleg whiskey,\u201d defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed.\n4. Evidence \u00a7 5\u2014\n\u201cBootleg whiskey\u201d implies illicit whiskey in the sense that the possession, possession for sale, transportation, etc., thereof, under the circumstances, is unlawful, whether taxpaid or nontax-paid, and therefore, the court cannot take judicial notice that \u201cbootleg whiskey\u201d is \u201cnon-tax-paid liquor.\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, Emergency Judge, October Special Term, 1955, of Edgeo\u00f3mbe.\nCriminal prosecution on warrant charging that defendant, on or about 3 April, 1955, \u201cdid unlawfully and wilfully have in his possession and did transport on his 1948 Chevrolet automobile 6 gallons of non-tax-paid liquor, . . .\u201d\nUpon appeal from the Recorder\u2019s Court of Edgecombe County, defendant was tried, on the warrant, in the Superior Court. Upon the jury\u2019s verdict of guilty, judgment was pronounced. Defendant excepted and appealed, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Rodman and Assistant Attorney-General McGal-liard for the State.\nWeeks & Muse for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0706-01",
  "first_page_order": 746,
  "last_page_order": 747
}