State v. Fisher
Supreme Court of Vermont
Complaint for selling intoxicating liquor contrary to law. Trial by jury at the December Term, 1861, Pierpoint, J., presiding. It was admitted that the respondent, on or about the first day of April, 1860, was duly appointed agent to sell intoxicating liquor in the town of Ripton, and was acting as such agent at the time of the sales complained of and proved on this trial.
Read the full summary
Complaint for selling intoxicating liquor contrary to law. Trial by jury at the December Term, 1861, Pierpoint, J., presiding. It was admitted that the respondent, on or about the first day of April, 1860, was duly appointed agent to sell intoxicating liquor in the town of Ripton, and was acting as such agent at the time of the sales complained of and proved on this trial. The prosecution introduced the following testimony : John Bailey — “ I bought intoxicating liquor of the respondent four or five times, a pint at a time, and for lawful uses in all instances except, two ; and in those two I…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
The statute, for the violation of which this prosecution was instituted, prohibits any sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquors; with provisions by which, for certain *588specified purposes, they may be sold without incurriag the penalties.
It has been decided that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the respondent had not lawful authority to sell, that the fact of having such authority is matter of defence, after the fact of selling has been proved. It is obvious that, in order to constitute a defence, the necessary lawful authority implies not only the holding of the office…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Adams v. NicholsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1825
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. ScampiniSupreme Court of Vermont · 1904
- State v. NultySupreme Court of Vermont · 1885