Case ID: nc_209/html/0358-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. HOWARD WELLS.
    (Filed 22 January, 1936.)
    Criminal Law L d—
    Exceptions not brought forward and discussed in appellant’s brief will be deemed abandoned. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 28.
    Appeal by defendant from Rousseau, J., at October Term, 1935, of Forsyth.
    Criminal prosecution, tried upon indictment charging the defendant, in five different counts, with violations of the prohibition laws.
    Yerdict: “Guilty of possession and transporting intoxicating liquors.”
    
      Judgment: On the count for transporting, 12 months on the roads; on the count for possession, 2 years on the roads, to be suspended for five years on good behavior.
    Defendant appeals, assigning errors.
    
      Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Aihen for the State.
    
    
      Phin Horton, Jr., for defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

No reversible error has been made to appear in the trial of the cause. The exception to the judgment does not seem to have been brought forward and discussed in appellant’s brief. Hence, it is deemed to be abandoned. S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737: “Exceptions in the record not set out in appellant’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.” Rule 28, Rules of Practice in Supreme Court; In re Beard, 202 N. C., 661, 163 S. E., 748.

No error.