Court Opinion

ID: 9808207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:30:21.548214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:58.314991
License: Public Domain

ClaeksoN, J.,
concurring: I concur in the opinion solely on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to go to the jury on all the facts in the case. S. v. Addor, 183 N. C., 687, cited in the opinion, is not applicable to the law as it is now written.
The Legislature of North Carolina passed “An act to make the State law conform to the National law in relation to intoxicating liquors.” Chapter 1, Public Laws 1923. The sentiment of the people of the State was so overwhelming in favor of this act that in the Senate, out of fifty members, there were only two votes cast against it.
The people of North Carolina, at an election held on 26 May, 1908, voted against “the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.” (Act ratified 31 January, 1908.) The majority was 44,196. The old law had many “leaks” in it, and, to meet facts in cases like the Addor case, supra, section 4 of the act of 1923, supra, was passed. This section reads: “It *469shall be unlawful to advertise, manufacture, sell, or possess for sale any utensil, contrivance, machine, preparation, compound, tablet, substance, formula, direction, or receipt, advertised, designed, or intended for use in the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor. It shall be unlawful to have or possess any liquor or property designed for the manufacture of liquor intended for use in violating this act, or which has been so used, and no property rights shall exist in any such liquor or property.”
The facts in the.Adclor case, supra, under the present law, would make one guilty of a breach of the above section.
Clark, C. J., concurs in concurring opinion.