State v. Hyde
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The defendant was tried, and convicted in the district •court for Martin county, Dickinson, J., presiding, on an indictment charging that “the said J. N. Hyde, on the 16th ■day of December A. D. 1878, at the village of Fairmont, Martin county, Minnesota, did sell and dispose of unto Jay B. Colton, then and there a minor person, intoxicating liquors in a certain quantity, the exact quantity being to this grand jury unknown, contrary to the statute,” etc.
Read the full summary
The defendant was tried, and convicted in the district •court for Martin county, Dickinson, J., presiding, on an indictment charging that “the said J. N. Hyde, on the 16th ■day of December A. D. 1878, at the village of Fairmont, Martin county, Minnesota, did sell and dispose of unto Jay B. Colton, then and there a minor person, intoxicating liquors in a certain quantity, the exact quantity being to this grand jury unknown, contrary to the statute,” etc. A motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment was rendered, and the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.
Section 10, of chapter 16, of the General' Statutes of 1878, provides for two distinct offences, and prescribes a separate and different penalty for each. The first, two sentences of the section relate to one of these offences, and the rest of the section exclusively to the other. As is-not unfrequently the case with our statutes, the second sentence contains an inaccuracy of expression, which is clearly the result of an inadvertence, for the context makes it sufficiently manifest that reference was had solely to the preceding portions of the section, in the clause therein declaring-that “any…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. SteevesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
- State v. McGinnisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- State v. McGinnisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882