State v. Butler
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions by defendant. In this case, the defendant was arraigned upon an indictment found by the Superior Court for Kennebec County at the April term, 1914, for keeping a drinking house and tippling shop. He entered a plea of not guilty, was tried and convicted.
Read the full summary
On exceptions by defendant. In this case, the defendant was arraigned upon an indictment found by the Superior Court for Kennebec County at the April term, 1914, for keeping a drinking house and tippling shop. He entered a plea of not guilty, was tried and convicted. In the course of the trial, the defendant objected to the testimony of two deputy sheriffs; the presiding Judge overruled his objections and admitted the evidence, and the defendant had exceptions to said ruling. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSpear, J.
This case involves an indictment against Odilon Butler in the usual form for keeping a drinking house and tippling shop. He was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and was put upon trial. The bill of exceptions states the case:
“During the progress of the trial the County Attorney introduced the testimony of two deputy sheriffs; namely, Charles H. Farrington and John Roderick. Neither of them gave evidence or was requested to give evidence with regard to. having any knowledge of his own that the respondent maintained a tippling shop or was guilty of any infraction of the prohibitory law…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. RotoloWyoming Supreme Court · 1928
- New England Newspaper Pub. Co. v. BonnerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1934
- State v. MitchellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1949