State v. Perkins
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Indictment, against Jacob Perkins for selling liquor. No evidence was offered by the state to show that the respondent was not an agent of the town in which it was alleged that the sale was made, for the purpose of soiling spirituous liquor, and tlie respondent’s counsel asked the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in his favor for want of proof that he was not such agent, which the court declined to do; and the jury having returned a verdict of guilty, the…
Read the full summary
Indictment, against Jacob Perkins for selling liquor. No evidence was offered by the state to show that the respondent was not an agent of the town in which it was alleged that the sale was made, for the purpose of soiling spirituous liquor, and tlie respondent’s counsel asked the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in his favor for want of proof that he was not such agent, which the court declined to do; and the jury having returned a verdict of guilty, the respondent moved to set it aside for such refusal to instruct the jury.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
I. In Lisbon v. Lyman, 49 N. H. 553, 568-582, the court were unanimously of opinion that the burden of proof, on the question of payment of all taxes duly assessed, was not shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant by any rule or supposed rule in relation to a subject-matter peculiarly within the knowledge of one of the parties. It was held — p. 582 — that if there was any such rule operating as a rule of law to shift the burden of proof, it was not applicable to that case; because it did not appear that the proof in relation to the assessment and payment of taxes was so…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Farrall v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Smith & Blood v. JoyceNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Schmidt v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- Easterling v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1858
- Shearer v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1844
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.