State v. Cox
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Indictment, for a second offence of illegally keeping malt liquor for sale. Verdict for the state. The alleged former conviction was before a police court; and the only record of it was the original complaint with minutes indorsed upon it by the clerk of court, showing that the defendant pleaded guilty and was fined. The complaint and minutes were received in evidence, subject to the defendant’s exception.
1Opinion of the CourtPike, J.
The original complaint and the minutes indorsed upon it contained explicit evidence of all facts required for extending the j udgment. They were the only evidence of the j udgment in existence at the time of trial. The court had authority to allow a formal record to be made from them before receiving the evidence. Willard v. Harvey, 24 N. H. 344; Ballou v. Smith, 29 N. H. 530. The extended record would prove the same facts with the same force that the complaint and minutes proved. The defendant would receive no benefit by the change in the form of proof.
It is held in Massachusetts under…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Good v. FrenchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Commonwealth v. HatfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. ScheminiskyIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
- Jaffrey v. SmithSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911
- Lamprey v. H. P. Hood & SonsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Taylor v. BushnellOhio Court of Appeals · 1919