State v. Raymond
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a complaint preferred, by a grandjuror of the town of Darien, to a justice of the peace, against Stephen Raymond, for keeping spirituous and intoxicatingliquors, with intent to sell the same, in violation of the statute passed in 1854, entitled “An act for the suppression of intemperance.’’ A trial was had before the justice, and the defendant was found guilty.
Read the full summary
This was a complaint preferred, by a grandjuror of the town of Darien, to a justice of the peace, against Stephen Raymond, for keeping spirituous and intoxicatingliquors, with intent to sell the same, in violation of the statute passed in 1854, entitled “An act for the suppression of intemperance.’’ A trial was had before the justice, and the defendant was found guilty. From this decision he appealed to the superior court for the county of Fairfield, at its August term, 1855, when it was tried before a jury. Upon this trial, the attorney for the state introduced one WiHiam Taylor, as a…
1Opinion of the CourtStores, J.
It is too clear to admit of argument, that, in order to show that the defendant kept the liquor, in question on the trial, in his store, for the purpose of sale, evidence was admissible to prove that he had sold to Taylor other liquor of the same kind in that store ; and the defendant could not, in this ease, have been convicted for keeping the liquor so sold to Taylor, and for which sale he had been prosecuted, since the judge below carefully protected him against such conviction, by informing the jury that evidence of that sale was admissible, not for the purpose of convicting the defendant…
2Cited by9 opinions
- State v. OuelletteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- State v. SebastianSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
- State v. GilliganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1918
- State v. LaroseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
- State v. HesselWashington Supreme Court · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.