Legal Opinion

Howard v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided April 9, 1894PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Agreed statement. This was an action of debt to recover a penalty under the statute, submitted to the law court upon the following statement of facts : This was an action of debt brought by the pilaintiff, a game warden, against the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company, to recover the penal sum for transporting game in close time, under the statute of 1891, chap. 95, sec. 13. The defendant company received, of one Edwin Lancy, a young calf-moose about three months old,…

Read the full summary

Agreed statement. This was an action of debt to recover a penalty under the statute, submitted to the law court upon the following statement of facts : This was an action of debt brought by the pilaintiff, a game warden, against the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company, to recover the penal sum for transporting game in close time, under the statute of 1891, chap. 95, sec. 13. The defendant company received, of one Edwin Lancy, a young calf-moose about three months old, which was hunted and captured in Wilson pond, in the county of Piscataquis, in the month of July, 1892, by said Lancy. Said…

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.

The question of this case involves the construction of section 10 of chapter 95 of the laws of 1891, which section runs as follows :

"Sect. 10. Section eighteen of said chapter is hereby amended by striking out all of said section after the figures ' eighteen,’ and inserting the following words : ' Officers authorized to enforce the fish and game laws and all other persons, may recover the penalties for the violation thereof in an action *389of debt in their own names, or by complaint or indictment in the name of the State, and such prosecution may be commenced in any county in which the offender…

2Cited by13 opinions

  1. Ex parte SMITHNevada Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Lodge 1858, American Federation of Government Employees v. WebbCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1978
  3. United States ex rel. Harris v. DanielsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  4. W. S. Libbey Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1953
  5. State ex rel. Greene County v. GideonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API