State v. Day
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Luria (District Court, S.D. New York 1911)
- State v. Kingsley (Mo. 1891)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
— The indictment charges upon the defendant a violation of the provisions of the Act of June 2, 1851, c. 211, § 8, by being a common seller of spirituous liquors without license.
It has been decided, that an indictment charging a person with being a common seller and with the actual sale of such liquors, did not charge more than one offence. State v. Cottle, 15 Maine, 473; State v. Stinson, 17 Maine, 154; State v. Churchill, 25 Maine, 306. The result is, that a charge of being a common seller includes a charge of making actual sales.
• By the Act approved on March 31, 1853, c. 49, § 9, it is provided, “ whenever an unlawful sale is alleged and a delivery is proved, it shall not be necessary to prove a payment, but such delivery shall be sufficient evidence of sale.” This provision is applicable, when proof of actual sales are required to convict one of the offence of being a common seller.
The Legislature may make changes in the rules of evidence, without a violation of any provision of the constitution. Oriental Bank v. Freese, 18 Maine, 109.
It has been decided, that three different sales would be sufficient to authorize a conyiction for being a common seller. Commonwealth v. Odlin, 23 Pick. 275. And that all the
All the requested instructions were properly refused.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.