Overseers of Poor v. Lunt
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Rochester mayor’s court. The defendant was sued in a justice’s court for selling without licence spirituous liquors, and permitting the same to be drank in his house, and a penalty of $25 claimed of him. The defendant pleaded the general issue. The cause was tried by a jury.
Read the full summary
Error from the Rochester mayor’s court. The defendant was sued in a justice’s court for selling without licence spirituous liquors, and permitting the same to be drank in his house, and a penalty of $25 claimed of him. The defendant pleaded the general issue. The cause was tried by a jury. The fact that the defendant sold spirituous liquor and that it was drank in his house was conclusively proved; but it appeared that he uniformly resorted to some device to evade the law— as, for instance, when spirituous liquor was called for he would say he had no right to sell it, but he sold beer and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
The cases referred to seem to establish the general rule that a new trial will not be granted in a penal action merely because the verdict is against evidence, if there has been no irregularity, nor tampering with the jury. In Seymour v. Day, 2 Strange, 899, the action was for the penalty in killing a hare, not being qualified. The jury found for the defendant, contrary to the direction of the judge, and the court refused a new trial, saying it had never been carried so far as a penal action. So in Mattison v. Allanson, 2 Strange, 1238, the action was upon the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- People v. GlasgowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Lawyer v. SmithCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- United States v. SalterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1843
- Decker v. StauringNew York Supreme Court · 1879
- East River Bank v. HoytNew York Supreme Court · 1862
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.