State v. . BaggyState v. . Baggy
Feb 5, 1890
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Merrimon
Thе dеfendant wаs an itinerаnt dеntist, аnd was indiсtеd fоr praсtiсing his рrofеssion without а licеnse. Wе are unаblе to seе аny cause fоr this аppеal. No еrror is assigned, and, upon examination, we find the record regular and unexceptionable. In such a case the judgment will be affirmed. S. v. Freeman, 93 N.C. 558; S. v. Bell, 103 N.C. 438.
Judgment affirmed.