State v. Cunningham
Supreme Court of Vermont
CompeaiNT under No. 95, Acts of 1900: The respondent’s demurrer to< the complaint was overruled ini the City Court of the city of Barre, Fay, Judge, where trial by jury was then had. Verdict and judgment, guilty. The respondent excepted. The complaint is bad in that it does not negative that the respondent was a resident of Washington County. The exception is in the enacting clause, and a part of the description of the offense. State v..
Read the full summary
CompeaiNT under No. 95, Acts of 1900: The respondent’s demurrer to< the complaint was overruled ini the City Court of the city of Barre, Fay, Judge, where trial by jury was then had. Verdict and judgment, guilty. The respondent excepted. The complaint is bad in that it does not negative that the respondent was a resident of Washington County. The exception is in the enacting clause, and a part of the description of the offense. State v.. Sommers, 3 Vt. 156; State v. NortMeld, 13 Vt. 565; State v. Munger, 15 Vt. 290; State v. Barker, 18 Vt. 19 5; Sítate v. Palmer, Id. 570; State v. Stevenson,…
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.
No. 95, Acts of 1900, provides for the licensing of auctioneers, and then proceeds as follows: “If a person, not so licensed, sells or offers for sale at auction in any town or city in the State, goods, chattels or other property, he shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars and not less than ten dollars; but this section shall not apply to sales at auction * * * made by any person in the county where he resides.”
This was a complaint, under the statute referred to; setting up the respondent as temporarily of the city of Barre. In other respects the complaint charged in appropriate…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Town of Jamaica v. Town of TownshendSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Middlebury v. WalthamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1834
- Town of Jericho v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
3Cited by1 opinion
- Burdine v. SewellSupreme Court of Florida · 1926