State v. Day
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions from Nisi Prim, Howard, J., presiding. Indictment for the common selling of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, in the town of Saco, between October 1, 1853, and April 1, 1854, under the Act of June 2d, -1851. After the evidence for the State was introduced, the defendant requested the Judge to give the following instructions : — 1. That the provisions of the law of 1853-, in addition to c. 211, that, a delivery shall be sufficient evidence, without proof of…
Read the full summary
On Exceptions from Nisi Prim, Howard, J., presiding. Indictment for the common selling of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, in the town of Saco, between October 1, 1853, and April 1, 1854, under the Act of June 2d, -1851. After the evidence for the State was introduced, the defendant requested the Judge to give the following instructions : — 1. That the provisions of the law of 1853-, in addition to c. 211, that, a delivery shall be sufficient evidence, without proof of payment, when a sale is alleged, does not apply to this case, and that if it does apply, the same is unconstitutional. 2.…
1Opinion of the CourtShepley, C. J.
— The indictment charges upon the defendant a violation of the provisions of the Act of June 2, 1851, c. 211, § 8, by being a common seller of spirituous liquors without license.
It has been decided, that an indictment charging a person with being a common seller and with the actual sale of such liquors, did not charge more than one offence. State v. Cottle, 15 Maine, 473; State v. Stinson, 17 Maine, 154; State v. Churchill, 25 Maine, 306. The result is, that a charge of being a common seller includes a charge of making actual sales.
• By the Act approved on March 31, 1853, c. 49, § 9, it is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. LuriaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1911
- State v. KingsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1891