State v. Guyer
Supreme Court of Vermont
Prosecution, tinder P. S. 5893, for keeping a house of ill fame. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury in the city court of the city of Barre, Scott, Judge. Verdict, guilty. Respondent excepted. The opinion states the ease. It was error to allow the witness Lacroix to testify that he was drinking while at respondent’s house.
Read the full summary
Prosecution, tinder P. S. 5893, for keeping a house of ill fame. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury in the city court of the city of Barre, Scott, Judge. Verdict, guilty. Respondent excepted. The opinion states the ease. It was error to allow the witness Lacroix to testify that he was drinking while at respondent’s house. The evidence tended to show the commission of an offence different from the one alleged in the complaint, because it tended to produce an impression in the^minds of the jury that the liquor was obtained from respondent. Although evidence of the commission of another crime by…
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, J.
The respondent has been found guilty of the crime of keeping a house of ill fame in the city of Barre. One Frank Lacroix, a witness called by the State, testified to going to the house-of the respondent, with two other men, on the day alleged in the complaint, and that while there one Mrs. Bennett' came there;'that Mrs. Bennett invited him to go upstairs with her, and he went, and when upstairs they .got into a bed, remaining there between five and eight minutes, and then went back downstairs. The witness was asked whether he was drinking down there and, subject to exception on the ground of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. PlantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- State v. WhiteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. Coomer, Jr.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1933
- Haffner v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- In Re PierceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1931