State v. Intoxicating Liquors
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions and motion to set aside the verdict from superior court. An appeal from the municipal court of Portland on a libel of forty-one gallons of brandy seized by Charles W. Stevens, a police officer, in a freight car at the depot- of the Boston and Maine Railroad Company in Portland, and claimed by C. H. Guppy, a druggist and apothecary.
Read the full summary
On exceptions and motion to set aside the verdict from superior court. An appeal from the municipal court of Portland on a libel of forty-one gallons of brandy seized by Charles W. Stevens, a police officer, in a freight car at the depot- of the Boston and Maine Railroad Company in Portland, and claimed by C. H. Guppy, a druggist and apothecary. The presiding justice, in his charge to the jury, gave, amongst other things, the following instruction and rulings, viz. :' 1st. " It is in evidence that this claimant, at the time this liquor was seized or prior thereto, paid a special tax to the…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
One of the provisions of the act of 1887, chapter 140, (amendatory of the liquor law) declares that payment of the United States special tax as a liquor seller, shall be held to he prima facie evidence that the one paying the tax isa common seller of intoxicating liquors. What is the meaning of this provision? Does it impose upon the court the duty of instructing the jury, as matter of law, that proof of such payment will make it their duty to find the defendant guilty, whether they believe him to be so or not? It is a sufficient answer to say that a jury cannot be so instructed in any…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Pine v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1917
- State v. PotelloUtah Supreme Court · 1911
- State v. SklarSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
- Stanton v. Trustees of St. Joseph's CollegeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
- People v. KayneMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.