State v. Howard
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions by Dependant. 'The case appears in the opinion. The state simply offered this paper, without any explanation as to what it was, without any testimony to show to what part of the internal revenue department it referred, for the purpose of proving an indictment charging this respondent with keeping a liquor nuisance.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions by Dependant. 'The case appears in the opinion. The state simply offered this paper, without any explanation as to what it was, without any testimony to show to what part of the internal revenue department it referred, for the purpose of proving an indictment charging this respondent with keeping a liquor nuisance. Without further evidence it was clearly inadmissible to show the payment of a tax that would render this respondent liable under an indictment for keeping a liquor nuisance.
1Opinion of the CourtWhitehouse, J.
This was an indictment against the respondent for maintaining a common nuisance by using a certain tenement, occupied by him, for the illegal keeping and illegal sale of intoxicating liquors.
In support of this indictment the state introduced against the respondent’s objection an examined copy of the “record of special tax-payers” kept in the office of the collector of U. S. Internal Revenue at Portsmouth, N. H., for the purpose of showing that the respondent had paid the special tax of twenty dollars imposed by the statutes of the United States upon “retail dealers in malt liquors.”
The jury…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Billingsley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
- Garner v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1952