State v. McDonough
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. The defendant having been convicted upon a complaint before the municipal court, for the city of Bath, which alleged that, on the fourth day of December, A. D., 1890, he "did then and there, at said Bath, in said county, transport intoxicating liquors from the office of theN.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. The defendant having been convicted upon a complaint before the municipal court, for the city of Bath, which alleged that, on the fourth day of December, A. D., 1890, he "did then and there, at said Bath, in said county, transport intoxicating liquors from the office of theN. E. Dispatch Express Company, in said Bath, to the building numbered 152 on the west side of Commercial street, with intent that said liquors shall be sold in this State by some person or persons to the complainant unknown, in violation of law, and to aid such person or persons in such sale, against the…
1Opinion of the CourtAYalton, J.
All unnecessary prolixity in criminal as well as civil pleadings ought to be avoided. But it is a fundamental rule of the criminal law, from which no departure can be allowed, that no one shall be convicted of a crime unless the complaint or indictment upon which he is tried contains a direct allegation of every material fact which it is necessary to prove in order to establish his guilt. In other words, whatever it is necessary to prove must first be averred ; and averred directly, and not by way of argument, implication, or inference merely. Stale v. Philbrick, 31 Maine, 401; State v. Paul,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hartwell v. TefftSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1896
- Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. v. StewartWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1946
- CarsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1944