majority"> S4aoy, J.

Defendant moved to set aside tbe verdict because, be alleges, it was against tbe overwhelming weight of tbe evidence. Motion overruled and exception. Tbe granting of a new trial in a criminal prosecution, or its refusal, on tbe. ground tbat tbe verdict is contrary to tbe weight of tbe evidence, is discretionary with tbe trial court and not reviewable on appeal. S. v. Hancock, 151 N. C., 699.

Defendant moved in arrest of judgment because be was indicted under tbe old law, and tbe “Turlington Act” went into effect tbe very day he was. tried and convicted. This exception is fully met by what was said in S. v. Foster, 185 N. C., 674.

As indicated by its title, “An Act to Make tbe State Law Conform to tbe National Law in Relation to Intoxicating Liquors,” chapter 1, Public Laws 1923, tbe purpose of tbe Legislature, in tbe passage of tbe Turlington Act, was to make tbe State law conform to tbe National law on tbe subject of prohibition.’ Tbe two statutes, as now written, contain, in tbe main, exactly similar or practically similar provisions. And tbe chief purpose of each enactment is to prohibit and, as far as possible, to prevent, except as authorized by each statute, tbe manufacture, sale and transportation, for beverage purposes, of any and every kind of “intoxicating liquor”; and this is expressly "defined to be any spirituous, vinous, malt or fermented liquor or liquid, fit for use for beverage purposes and containing onerbalf of one per centum or more of alcohol. U. S. v. Dodson, 268 Fed., 397. Accordingly, in each statute, Federal and State, tbe courts are enjoined to give a liberal construction to all tbe provisions of tbe act, to tbe end tbat tbe use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented. Rose v. United States, 274 Fed., 245; U. S. v. Crossen, 264 Fed., 459. This is “appropriate legislation,” calculated to aid in tbe enforcement of tbe Eighteenth Amendment to tbe Constitution of tbe United States, and-hence it must be regarded by us as tbe established public policy on tbe subject. S. v. Harrison, 184 N. C., 762.

There is no error appearing on tbe record.

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress