State v. Fortin
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions by defendant. The defendant was indicted for keeping and maintaining a liquor nuisance and on trial was found guilty. He excepted to certain rulings of the presiding Justice during the trial. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtEmery, C. J.
The issue in this case was whether the defendant was guilty of maintaining a nuisance at the place named in the indictment. At the trial "the witness for the state” testified, without objection so far as appears, that complaints had been made to him against the place named. The defendant then asked the witness to name the complainants, but the court ruled that the witness need not answer. It is not explicitly stated in the bill of exceptions who "the witness for the state” was, but it is a fair inference that he was an officer, and as both counsel so assumed in argument we assume the same.
It…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Worthington v. ScribnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- People v. LairdMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- United States v. MosesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1827
3Cited by9 opinions
- Handley v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Segurola v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1926
- State v. . CardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- State v. NortonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1955
- State v. FranzenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.