{
  "id": 11275880,
  "name": "THE STATE v. GEORGE W. PATTERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Patterson",
  "decision_date": "1887-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "666",
  "last_page": "668",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.C. 666"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3525,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7710994026850012e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7120353348785972
    },
    "sha256": "d6b4fb639956f70cb9ee4c10b355c7aad6fc5f5f08561ce83c61230d05eb7a95",
    "simhash": "1:a6d643461f672476",
    "word_count": 599
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:55.485321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. GEORGE W. PATTERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, C. J.,\n(after stating the case). The church is designated in the same terms in the statute and in the indictment, and in our opinion, concurring with that of the Judge, sufficiently points out the locality in which the offence was committed. There is and has been but one church in the county to which either name has been applied, and the difference between \u201c Rocky Knoll \u201d and \u201c Rocky Ridge,\u201d as designating the location of the church, is too slender to produce any uncertainty in identifying it. The name is manifestly suggested by the nature of the land whereon the building has been erected, as a \u201cKnoll\u201d or Ridge, which in meaning closely approximate. Besides, some persons have heard it called by the name given in legislative act, and such must be the intention of the legislature in passing the act, upon the principle ut res magis %deat quam pereai.\nThere is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, C. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General and Messrs. T. 0. Fuller, Geo. H. Snow and E. G. Smith, for the State.",
      "Messrs. C. M. Busbee and John Devereux, Jr., for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. GEORGE W. PATTERSON.\nEvidence\u2014 Variance.\nThe defendant was indicted for selling liquors within two miles of \u201cRocky Knoll\u201d church, in Cabarrus County, under a statute in which the locality was designated by the same name ; the evidence was that it was generally called \u201c Rocky Ridge \u201d church, though a few persons called it \u201c Rocky Knoll,\u201d and that there was no other church in the county known by those names ; Held, that the variance was not material.\nCRIMINAL ACTION, tried before Glarlc, Judge, at Pall Term, 1887, of Cabarrus Superior Court.\nIt appears from.the special verdict, that the defendant sold within the county of Cabarrus, as charged in the indictment, one quart of spirituous liquors, to the person therein named, without having a license to sell such liquors by the quantity \u201cof one quart and less than five gallons,\u201d as required by the statute, (Acts 1887, Oh. 135, \u00a731,) but it likewise further so appears, that the spirits so sold were the \u201c products\u201d of the defendant\u2019s own farm, which.he had the right to sell without a license \u201cin quantities of not less than one quart, except in territory where the sale of liquors is prohibited by law.\u201d He was therefore not guilty of any offence, unless he so sold the spirits within such territory.\nThere is a count in the indictment charging that the defendant so sold the spirits mentioned \u201cwithin two and one half miles of \u2018 Rocky Knoll \u2019 church, in Cabarrus County,\u201d within which territory the sale of all intoxicating liquors is absolutely prohibited by the statute. (Acts 1872-73, Ch. 171.) And it appears from the special verdict, that the sale was made within that distance from \u201c Rocky Knoll \u201d church, in said county.\nThe special verdict further fin\u00bfs that, at the time when the prohibitory enactment was made, there was a church in that county generally known as \u201c Rocky Ridge \u201d church, while a few persons have heard it called \u201cRocky Knoll\u201d church, and there is but one church with either of said names in said county.\nThe defendant insisted that there is a fatal variance between the allegation in the indictment and the proofs offered in its support \u2014 in the description of the church around which is the prohibited territory, and that the defendant is not guilty of the charge.\nThe Court ruled otherwise, and, adjudging the defendant guilty upon the facts found, directed the verdict to be so entered, and from the judgment therein the defendant appealed.\nThe Attorney General and Messrs. T. 0. Fuller, Geo. H. Snow and E. G. Smith, for the State.\nMessrs. C. M. Busbee and John Devereux, Jr., for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0666-01",
  "first_page_order": 698,
  "last_page_order": 700
}