State v. Dorr
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. The indictment charged that the defendant had sold “a quantity of intoxicating liquors” without lawful authority, and that he bad been convicted of a prior single sale at a term’ of court held in the year one thousand and eightv-eight. The respondent filed a general demurrer to the indictment, which was joined by attorney for the state. The presiding justice overruled the demurrer and adjudged the indictment sufficient. To this ruling the respondent excepted.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. The indictment charged that the defendant had sold “a quantity of intoxicating liquors” without lawful authority, and that he bad been convicted of a prior single sale at a term’ of court held in the year one thousand and eightv-eight. The respondent filed a general demurrer to the indictment, which was joined by attorney for the state. The presiding justice overruled the demurrer and adjudged the indictment sufficient. To this ruling the respondent excepted. Allegation of former conviction should correctly describe term of court, when such conviction was had. The indictment…
1Opinion of the CourtEmery, J.
The respondent mates several objections to the indictment:—
1. That his offense is alleged to be contrary to the form of the “statue,” instead of contrary to the form of the “statute.” If this objection could ever have prevailed, it cannot now, since the enactment of R. S., c. 131, § 12, which provides that the entire omission of the words “contrary to the form of the statute, etc.,” shall not vitiate the indictment.
2. That the indictment does not specify the particular kind of intoxicating liquor he unlawfully sold. No such specification is necessary. The statute in terms forbids the sale of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. LaroseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
- State v. McClaySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
- Ramsey v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
- State v. Stewart.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1925