State v. Danforth
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an information charging the respondent with fn rnishing intoxicating liquor. Trial by jury, at the September Term,. 1889, Rowers, J., presiding. Terdict, guilty. The evidence on the part of the prosecution tended to show that the respondent “treated one Cain. The liquor was furnished without compensation to and was drunk by Cain in a room in the village of Rutland, back of what had formerly been a store, but which was then empty.
Read the full summary
This was an information charging the respondent with fn rnishing intoxicating liquor. Trial by jury, at the September Term,. 1889, Rowers, J., presiding. Terdict, guilty. The evidence on the part of the prosecution tended to show that the respondent “treated one Cain. The liquor was furnished without compensation to and was drunk by Cain in a room in the village of Rutland, back of what had formerly been a store, but which was then empty. Cain had the keys to the room and some articles of furniture there; no business was conducted there. The upper part of the building was occupied as a…
1Opinion of the Court
*190The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tyler, J.
The act of furnishing intoxicating liquor by the respondent, which the State’s evidence tended to prove, was in violation of the statute, R. L. s. 3800, unless done in a private dwelling or its dependency. It was incumbent upon the respondent to show affirmatively that the act fell within this .exception to the general prohibition of the law. State v. Freeman, 27 Vt. 523; State v. Norton, 45 Vt. 258.
We find no error, therefore there must be judgment and sentence on the verdict.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. FreemanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- State v. NortonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. JonesWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- State v. LinderOhio Supreme Court · 1907