Foster v. Haines
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
The action was debt, there being but one count in the declaration, founded on the statute of March J3, 1834, ch. 141, to recover two penalties alleged to have been incurred by the defendant for selling by retail, without license therefor, a pint of gin to one individual, and a quart of brandy to another.
Read the full summary
The action was debt, there being but one count in the declaration, founded on the statute of March J3, 1834, ch. 141, to recover two penalties alleged to have been incurred by the defendant for selling by retail, without license therefor, a pint of gin to one individual, and a quart of brandy to another. The action was originally commenced before a Justice of the Peace, and came into the Common Pleas by appeal, and into this Court by exceptions to the direction and ruling of the Judge of that Court. The defendant moved,-in the Court of Common Pleas, to quash the writ on the ground, that two…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, at a subsequent term, was delivered by
WestoN C. J.
In the case of Wyman v. Dorr, 3 Greenl. 183, and in Clapp v. Balch, 3 Greenl. 216, it was held that the granting or refusing to grant amendments, was wdthin the discretion of the Common Pleas, and therefore did not furnish matter for exceptions. But if the original declaration had contained the counts, offered under leave to amend, we are of opinion, that after the plaintiff had introduced his testimony, a nonsuit was properly ordered, by the Judge who presided at the trial. It appeared by the plaintiff’s own showing,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Wakefield Bank v. TruesdellNew York Supreme Court · 1864