Case ID: nc_218/html/0513-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DeviN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. MRS. J. E. HENDERSON.
    (Filed 20 November, 1940.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquor § 8c—
    In this prosecution for illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, the admission of testimony that defendant’s tavern was a public place where people went to dance and eat is helcL not to constitute prejudicial error.
    3. Criminal Law § 81c—
    An excerpt from a portion of the judge’s statement of the State’s contentions will not be held for prejudicial error1 when it is apparent that considering the charge contextually, defendant was not prejudiced thereby.
    Appeal by defendant from Sinle, J., at April Term, 1940, of G-astoN.
    No error.
    
      Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.
    
    
      Ernest B. Warren and P. G. Fronéberger for defendant.
    
   DeviN, J.

The defendant was charged in the bill with the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale and with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor under the statute. The State’s evidence tended to show that defendant operated a tavern or road-house known as “Ma’s Tavern”; that the sheriff and his deputies, upon a search of the premises, found 58 pints of whiskey concealed in a trap; that the defend^ ant, who was not present at the time of the search, stated afterwards that “selling a little liquor was the worst thing she ever did.” The defendant offered no evidence. There was general verdict of guilty.

Tbe defendant assigns as error tbe ruling of tbe trial judge in permitting a witness to testify that defendant’s tavern was a public place where people went to dance and eat. This does not afford sufficient ground upon wbicb to predicate prejudicial error.

Tbe defendant’s exception to tbe judge’s charge cannot be sustained. Tbe excerpt therefrom, to wbicb exception was noted, was contained in tbe recitation of tbe State’s contentions, and, considered contextually, was insufficient to justify serious complaint. All other exceptions were abandoned. There was evidence sufficient to support tbe verdict, and in tbe trial we find

No error.