State v. Pratt
Supreme Court of Vermont
Prosecution for violation of the act of 1852. to prevent traffic in intoxicating liquors for the purpose of drinking, which was brought into the county court by appeal. Plea not guilty, and trial by jury at the December term, 1860. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of three offences. The facts in the ease, and all questions arising on the trial, sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court,
1Opinion of the Court
Poland Ch. J.
The respondent was tried in the county court upon a general complaint for violations of the liquor law, under which, by the statute, the jury may return a verdict for so many offences as are established by the evidence, and was convicted of three offences ; one for furnishing liquor to Ordway, and two for liquor furnished at his house to Davis and Hadley, and drank by them there.
*324No question is now made but that the conviction was proper for the furnishing the liquor to Ordway. It appears from the exceptions that there was no direct evidence that the liquor furnished by the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- Runkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Bizer v. BizerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- McBee v. McBeeOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Shaw v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.