State v. Harvey
Supreme Court of Vermont
Information for illegally having possession of fish protected by law. Heard on demurrer to the information, at the March Term, 1914, Washington County, Slack, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled and information adjudged sufficient. The respondent excepted." The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.
This is a grand juror’s complaint, brought before the city court of Montpelier, charging that the respondent, on a day named, without authority, had in his possession fish protected by law, that is, five brook trout, each less than six inches in length. The ease came into county court on appeal, and there the respondent demurred on the ground that the complaint did not allege that the respondent was “knowingly” in possession of five brook trout less than six inches in length. The demurrer was overruled, the respondent excepted, and the case was passed to this Court before trial.
The fish and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. Union Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- State v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Vermont · 1908
- State v. PaigeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- State v. CarruthSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- State v. TomasiSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Vermont v. CattanachSupreme Court of Vermont · 1970