Legal Opinion

State v. O'Connell

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided May 6, 1904PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Exceptions by defendant. Indictments for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, one being under the nuisance act, R. S. (1883), c. 17, § 1, and the other for being a common seller, under R. S. (1883), c. 27, § 35. The evidence disclosed that the article sold was “Uno Beer,” a malt liquor. The case appears in the opinion. Counsel argued: 1. That the beer in question is admittedly not intoxicating in fact.

Read the full summary

Exceptions by defendant. Indictments for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, one being under the nuisance act, R. S. (1883), c. 17, § 1, and the other for being a common seller, under R. S. (1883), c. 27, § 35. The evidence disclosed that the article sold was “Uno Beer,” a malt liquor. The case appears in the opinion. Counsel argued: 1. That the beer in question is admittedly not intoxicating in fact. The State does not claim that it is intoxicating. 2. The only claim of the State is that there is some malt in the beer in question and because it has any malt in it, it comes within the…

1Opinion of the CourtPowees, J.

Two indictments, — one for maintaining a nuisance under P. S. (1883), c. 17, § 1, and the other for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors under R. S. (1883), c. 27, § 35. . The evidence in each case was of the sale by the respondent of Uno beer, brewed from malt and containing 2.36 per cent of alcohol. A verdict of guilty was returned in each case. Counsel for the respondent requested the following instructions:

“That the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt:—

A. That malt entered into the composition of this beer as a substantial ingredient.

B. That if malt was used, but to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BrelsfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
  2. Commonwealth v. BlosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  3. Commonwealth v. CarrollMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. LynchSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Fine v. MoranSupreme Court of Florida · 1917
  3. In Re SpeerIdaho Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Elder v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
  5. Pennell v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909

11 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