State v. Tague
Supreme Court of Vermont
Compuaint for furnishing liquor without first procuring a license, in violation of No. 90, Acts 1902. Plea, not guilty. Trial by court in the City Court of the city of Montpelier, Woodward, Judge. Judgment, guilty of one offense, and sentence thereon. The respondent excepted.
Read the full summary
Compuaint for furnishing liquor without first procuring a license, in violation of No. 90, Acts 1902. Plea, not guilty. Trial by court in the City Court of the city of Montpelier, Woodward, Judge. Judgment, guilty of one offense, and sentence thereon. The respondent excepted. The trial court found that the respondent had not at the time of the alleged offense any license for the sale of intoxicating liquor; that upon the occasion named in the complaint the respondent gave away a drink of reduced alcohol; that there was no evidence that the respondent had violated the law in any other respect.
1Opinion of the CourtStafford, J.
The question is whether the giving away of intoxicating liquor is forbidden by our present statute, Acts 1902, No. 90. Furnishing is forbidden, and to1 give away is to furnish. State v. Freeman, 27 Vt. 523. The argument is that the repealed statute did in terms forbid giving away, while the present does not. But it was evidently intended that furnishing should include giving away. For example, in the exception allowing private hospitality in one’s dwelling, the word is furnish (Sec. 21). The construction contended for would lead to such absurdities as that minors and habitual drunkards,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. FreemanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. PerdueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- State v. McDermottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1936