State v. Keggon
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Indictment, charging- the respondent with keeping intoxicating liquor for sale, tried in the court below before Fostek, C. J. The respondent filed the following bill of exceptions, which was allowed: “The defendant excepts to the ruling of the court, that the state need not show that the defendant was not licensed, and asks to have the verdict set aside because there was no evidence that he was not licensed.”
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
It is evident that by tlie expression “ not licensed,” is meant “ not appointed agent ” for the sale of spirituous liquors.
The question raised here has frequently been before this court, and each time it has been settled against the position taken by this respondent— State v. Simons, 17 N. H. 83; State v. Foster, 28 N. H. 348; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422 ; State v. Shaw, 35 N. H. 217 ; and the general current of authorities is the same way. 1 Gr. Ev., sec. 79 and authorities there cited, in note 3 ; — see, also, authorities cited by Austin, attorney-general, in Commonwealth v. Thurlow, 24…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Spilene v. Salmon Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
- State v. KelleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
- State v. RobertsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875