State v. Reynolds
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a grand juror’s complaint under § 13, ch. 94, of the Gen. Sts., preferred to the city court of the city of Burlington, and appealed to the county court.
Read the full summary
This was a grand juror’s complaint under § 13, ch. 94, of the Gen. Sts., preferred to the city court of the city of Burlington, and appealed to the county court. The complaint alleged that the respondent, “ on the 24th day of January, 1874, at said city, did own, keep, and possess a large quantity, to wit, two quarts of intoxicating liquors, with unlawful intent then and there unlawfully to sell, furnish, and give away the same,” contrary to the provisions of said chapter, “ he the said Hiram H. Reynolds, then and there having no authority under the laws of this state, to sell, furnish, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.
The meaning of the expression, intoxicating liquor, could not be made more certain and free from ambiguity by designating it as gin, or rum, or whiskey, or brandy, or by any other name of a species. It embraces them all, and all disguises of them designed for sale or drinking in evasion of the law, as distinguished from legitimate medicinal preparations, lawfully kept, sold, and used as medicine.
The respondent enjoyed as much scope and facility of defence on the ground that the stuff was legitimate medicine, kept to be *300furnished and used…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. ScampiniSupreme Court of Vermont · 1904
- State v. PaigeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- State v. OliverWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1885
- State v. WaiteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1900
- State v. CampbellSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.