State v. Fitzgerald
Supreme Court of Vermont
Complaint for intoxication. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at.the September term, 1895, Taft, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment of guilty. The respondent excepts. What Cushman saw was a privileged communication. State v. Squires, 1 Tyl. 147; Durkee v. Leeland, 4 Vt. '612. The argument to which the respondent excepted was proper. State v. Ward, 6a Vt. 191; Seward v. Garlin, 33 Vt. 583 ; People v. Me Whorten, 4 Barb. 438 ; People v. Dyle, 21 N. Y. 578.
1Opinion of the CourtTyler, J.
The evidence tended to show that .the respondent was found intoxicated and was arrested and committed to the county jail; that soon after his commitment he sent for Mr. Cushman, an attorney, to go to the jail for the purpose of examining him and determining whether he was intoxicated or not: that the attorney went to the jail in company with one Buckley, and had an interview with the respondent; that he conversed with him awhile in the jail in Buckley’s presence. Mr. Cushman was employed by the respondent as his attorney and appeared for him in the city court, but ceased to act for him before…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Egan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- Commonwealth v. FrenchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- People v. MundayIllinois Supreme Court · 1917
- United States v. William Darryl BlakemoreCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1973
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1932
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.