Case ID: nc_49/html/0308-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nash, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. JIM WRIGHT.
    (Same point as in the preceding case.)
    IndictmeNt against defendant, a free negro, for furnishing’ spirits to a slave, tried before Ellis, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of Perquimons Superior Court.
    The indictment contained two counts, one charging that the defendant unlawfully did sell and deliver spiritous liquor to Sam, a slave; the other charging that the defendant unlawfully did give the spirituous liquor; both concluding against the statute. The proof stated was that Sam gave the defendant money, with a request that he would purchase for him, spiritous liquors, which he did — one quart — and delivered it to said slave.
    There were several points taken below, which it is not necessary to be stated, as the opinion of the Court proceeds on other grounds.
    The Court charged the jury that, upon the facts of the case,, the defendant was guilty. Defendant excepted.
    Yerdict for the State. Judgment and appeal.
    
      Attorney General, for the State.
    
      Jordan, for the defendant.
   Nash, C. J.

The defendant in this case is a free man of color. The indictment is substantially the same as in the case of Hopkins, ante 305. In the first count, the defendant is charged with selling and delivering to the slave, Sam, the property of Mrs. Barron, a quart of spirits ; and, in the second count, for giving the spirits. The facts of the case, though not exactly those set forth in the case of Hopkins, are sufficiently so to call for the same judgment. In the case sent up, his Honor states the first count was for delivering the spirits. The delivery to which the statute refers is a deliveiyas a gift. If there is no gift, there is no such delivery as brings the defendant within the operation of the statute. There certainly was no sale by tbe defendant; nor was there, for the reasons mentioned in the case of Hopkins, any gift. From the manner in which the case is drawn np, it is evident that the main object was to obtain from this Court an opinion as to the correctness of the Court below, in the course pursued as to the verdict of the jury. 'Less attention, therefore, was paid by the Judge instating the facts as to the main subject; but, as before remarked, sufficient appears to satisfy ns that there was no breach of the law, as stated in the indictment.

It is net necessary, in the view we have taken of the case, to express an opinion upon the other question sent up.

The judgment below is reversed, and this opinion is to be certified to the Superior Court of Law of Perquimons County, that it may proceed to judgment according to law.

Pee Cubiam. ' Judgment reversed.