State v. Silvius
State v. Silvius
Opinion of the Court
The defendant, who is a licensed pharmacist, has been convicted of selling intoxicating liquor upon a week-day to be drunk on his premises, and he now petitions for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the evidence and that he was improperly forced to a trial when he was ill and not ready.
The first part of the second ground alleged is that the attorney-general was allowed by the court to try the indictment against the defendant out of its regular order on the calendar ; that is, there being three indictments on the calen *323 dar for the day against the defendant for selling intoxicating liquor to be drunk on the premises, the court, against the defendant’s objection, allowed the attorney-general to proceed with the trial of the third indictment on said' calendar against the defendant.
Under the long and well-settled practice in this State, the attorney-general has control of his docket, and after it has been set down for trial and due notice thereof given, he may try the cases in such order as he sees fit. The defendant having been duly notified that all the indictments against him were down for trial on the day in question, he was bound to be ready or to show good cause why he was not, which he failed to do ; and hence this branch of the second ground for new trial cannot be sustained.
In view of these facts we cannot say that the defendant was unfairly or improperly forced to a trial.
Petition for new trial denied, and case remanded for sentence.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- State v. Oscar Silvius.
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published