State v. Haskell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Information for depositing sawdust, shavings, and mill refuse in the waters of the Lamoille river, in violation of No. 211, Acts 1908. Heard on demurrer to the information, at the June Term, 1910, Lamoille County, Butler, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled, pro forma, and the information adjudged sufficient. The respondent excepted. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, J.
This case is here on demurrer to the complaint charging that the respondent at Wolcott'(the alleged'place of his residence) in the county of Lamoille, on the 14th day of March, 1910, he then and there being the operator of a mill, did by himself and his agents, deposit and suffer to be deposited, *431sawdust, shavings, and mill refuse, in the waters of the Lamoille river above Cady’s Falls in the town of Morristown in said county, contrary to the form of the statute, etc. All of the counts are the same except that each charges the offence on a different date.
The complaint is based upon No. 211,…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Barbier v. ConnollySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Geer v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Baker v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
- State v. AuclairSupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
- Moran v. BowleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1932
- Sabre v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Benning v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1994
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.