State v. Zabud Mead's Liquors
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Proceeding under the statute with regard to intoxicating liquors, for the seizure of liquors kept with intent to sell contrary to law; brought by appeal of Mead, who assumed the defence, from the judgment of a justice- of the peac.e to the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County, and there tried to the jury before Be Forest, J. Yerdict for the State, and motion for a new trial by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Proceeding under the statute with regard to intoxicating liquors, for the seizure of liquors kept with intent to sell contrary to law; brought by appeal of Mead, who assumed the defence, from the judgment of a justice- of the peac.e to the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County, and there tried to the jury before Be Forest, J. Yerdict for the State, and motion for a new trial by the defendant. The points decided will be sufficiently understood from the opinion, without a statement of the facts.
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The motion shows that several questions were made on the trial of this case in the court below, only three of which are now insisted on.
1. To- prove that the liquors seized were kept with the intent to sell the same, the state offered evidence to prove two acts of sale, one before and one after the seizm-e; to which the defendant objected, but the court admitted it. We *23tliink it was properly received. Evidence of actual sales is strong evidence of the purpose for which liquors are kept. In this case all sales were prohibited, as the town had voted “no license.” The sales proved during that…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. O'TooleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
- State v. DavisConnecticut Superior Court · 1962
- State v. HartwickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1881
- State v. DavisConnecticut Appellate Court · 1962