Court Opinion

ID: 9812569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:42:12.911158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:21.396064
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
concurring in result: On the hearing, the defendant H. E. Laing, through counsel, pursuant to the provisions of O. S., 4610, waived bill and entered plea of guilty, as upon bill found, charging him with “unlawful possession and distribution of slot machines prohibited by law.” To what extent, therefore, the 1937 Flanagan Act has been modified by subsequent legislation is not necessarily presented on the instant record. Nor is it desirable that we here enter upon a discussion of the subject. Certainly there is no presumption as to what the General Assembly intended to do about it. Cf. S. v. Dixon, 215 N. C., 161, 1 S. E. (2d), 521. The question more properly arises in two appeals by J. N. Finch, Nos. 442 and 443 on our docket, where no waivers appear, but the defendant entered pleas of guilty on first count in bills as charged. Suffice it here to say the law forbids the possession, use, or operation of certain slot machines, Calcutt v. McGeachy, 213 N. C., 1, 195 S. E., 49, and permits the possession, use and operation of others, under license, McCormick v. Proctor, 217 N. C., 23, 6 S. E. (2d), 870. The defendant waived bill and pleaded guilty to such unlawful possession and distribution of slot machines as is prohibited by law. This renders the present appeal feckless.
BarNbull and WiNBORNE, JJ\, join in this opinion.