Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

177 N.C. 541

98 S.E 537

State v. . Ogleston

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 19, 1919

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1919-03-19

Appeal by defendants from Allen, J., at tlie December Term, 1918, •of LeNOIR. Tlie defendants — Perry, a white man, and Ogleston, a negro — were convicted under an indictment charging the unlawful manufacture of spirituous liquors and appealed from the judgment rendered upon the verdict.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1919-03-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1981

4 state decisions

2019191920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER OuRIam.

¶1 The evidence is, in our opinion, fully sufficient to support-the verdict. It tends to prove that the sheriff of Lenoir County, with two deputies, found a still in the woods a mile behind the houses where the'defendants lived; that the still was in active operation with a fire under the furnace and the spirits running from the spout of the still into a bucket; that Ogleston, who admitted that he had before that time engaged in the manufacture of spirituous liquors, was standing in front of the fire with his back to the still, and that Perry was sitting-down; that each of the defendants had a gun and that the two guns were wrapped up together and were near the defendants, and that no ■ one else was at or about the still.

¶2 As the still was in active operation and as the defendants were the ■ only persons present the inference was at least permissible that the defendants were in charge of the still and operating it.

¶3 The charge of his Honor is sustained by S. v. Horner, 174 N. C., *543 792, in which the Court says: “It makes no difference whether defendant was a principal in the first degree or in the second degree as an aider and abettor. The latter is but a lower grade of the principal ■offense, “viz, the distilling or manufacturing of the liquor. An aider and abettor is denominated in the books as a principal in the second ■degree.”

¶4 No error.

/177/nc/541 · .json · Public domain