TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Farrington.

State v. . Farrington

State v. Farrington., 53 S.E. 954 (N.C. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 16, 1906
Judges
Connor
Citations
53 S.E. 954141 N.C. 8441906 N.C. LEXIS 172
Headnotes
Intoxicating Liquors — Illegal Bale, Punishment Therefor— Cruel and Unusual Punishment — Sentence—Reasons. ]. For violation of a statute prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquors without a license, the person convie.ted may be imprisoned in the county jail with directions that he be worked upon the public roads. 2. When no time is fixed by the statute, this court will not hold an imprisonment for two years cruel and unusual. 3. It is proper for the trial judge to state the reasons which impelled ' him to impose the sentence.
Summary
INDICTMENT against T. B. Farrington, heard by Judge Q. IF. Ward and a jury, at the December Term, 1905, of the Superior Court of Guilford. The defendant was convicted for retailing spirituous liquors without license contrary to the statute. There was no exception to Hi's Honor’s ruling upon the trial. The testimony tended to show that he had sold liquor upon two occasions, the last of which was 18 months before the finding of the bill of indictment. The solicitor introduced several other witnesses who swore that his reputation in the community was particularly bad, for selling whiskey contrary to law. Some of the witnesses stated that it was generally reported that he had been engaged in the selling of whiskey for twelve or fifteen months before the bearing of this case, when be and his sons had been indicted for burning a barn, the property of persons who had been active in prosecuting him for the unlawful sale of whiskey. The court found as a fact that he was an old distiller before the Watts law went into effect, and that after the enactment of the law he sold a lot of liquor around, creating drunkenness in the neighborhood. The court thereupon sentenced the defendant to imprisonment of twelve months in the county jail, with direction that he be worked upon the public roads. To this sentence defendant excepted and appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — O'Connor

Connor, J., after stating the facts: It cannot, at 'this time, and in view of the many decisions of this court, be regarded as an open question that for violation of the statute prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquor without a license the person convicted may be imprisoned in the county jail with direction that he be worked upon the public roads.

State v. Hicks, 101 N. C., 747 ;

State v. Smith, 126 N. C., 1057 . It is equally well settled that when no time is fixed by the statute, this court will not hold an imprisonment for two years cruel and unusual.

State v. Driver, 78 N. C., 423 ;

State v. Miller, 94 N. C., 904 . It is entirely proper for His Honor to state the reasons which impelled him to impose the sentence of twelve months in jail with direction to work defendant on the public roads. While we disclaim any purpose to review His Honor’s judgment in this case, it may not be improper to say that we think the reasons given amply sustain the judgment.

There is No Error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1907: 11916: 11919: 11921: 11929: 11938: 11941: 21945: 11957: 11965: 11967: 21969: 12025: 119072026peak 1941 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Calcutt15 S.E.2d 9 (N.C. 1941) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  2. Klopfer v. North Carolina386 U.S. 213 (1967)
  3. State v. Pardon157 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. 1967)
  4. Sustar v. County Court201 P. 445 (Or. 1921)
  5. State v. Crandall33 S.E.2d 861 (N.C. 1945)
  6. State v. Powell169 S.E.2d 210 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)

Most recent

  1. State v. TiradoNo. 267PA21 (N.C. Jan. 31, 2025)
  2. State v. Powell169 S.E.2d 210 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
  3. State v. Pardon157 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. 1967)
  4. Klopfer v. North Carolina386 U.S. 213 (1967)
  5. Driver v. Hinnant243 F. Supp. 95 (E.D.N.C. 1965)
  6. State v. Lee100 S.E.2d 372 (N.C. 1957)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Driver, 78 N.C. 423 (1878) 37
State v. Miller, 94 N.C. 904 (1886) 12
State v. Hicks, 7 S.E. 707 (N.C. 1888) 7
State v. Smith, 35 S.E. 615 (N.C. 1900) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list