Gray v. State of Connecticut
| Decision Date | 03 June 1895 |
| Docket Number | No. 258,258 |
| Citation | 15 S.Ct. 985,40 L.Ed. 80,159 U.S. 74 |
| Parties | GRAY v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The plaintiff in error was charged before a justice of the peace for the county of New London, in the town of Groton, state of Connecticut, of Keeping a place in that town, on the 1st day of January, 1890, and on divers days subsequently, previous to the time of making the complaint, where it was reputed that intoxicating and spirituous liquors were kept for sale; and also of selling on the 1st day of January, 1890, and at divers days between that date and the time of making the complaint, in that town and county, without having a license therefor, to persons to the prosecuting agent unknown, spirituous and intoxicating liquors, on the premises, in quantities less than one gallon to be delivered at one time; and also of keeping on the 1st day of January, 1890, and at divers days between that date and the time of making the complaint, at that town and county, without having a license therefor, spirituous and intoxicating liquors, with intent to sell the same,—all of which acts are alleged to have been done against the peace of the state, to be of evil example, and contrary to the statute in such case made ad provided.
The plaintiff in error, who was thus charged, was arrested and, on his plea of not guilty, was tried and found guilty before the justice of the peace, and was ordered to pay a fine of $80 and costs, and to stand committed until the judgment was paid.
The accused moved for an appeal from the judgment to the next session of the criminal court of common pleas for New London county, which was granted, to be held on the second Tuesday of September, 1890, at Norwich, the accused then and there to answer the complaint, at which time he appeared, and, a nolle prosequi being entered upon the first count, for his plea to the other counts he said 'Not guilty.' After a full hearing of the cause on a new trial in the criminal court of common pleas, the accused was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and the costs of the prosecution, and to stand committed until the judgment was complied with.
Upon the trial in that court, the counsel of the appellant contended that the court should charge the jury:
(1) That if they found 'that the defendant did not sell, nor keep with intent to sell, spirituous and intoxicating liquors as such, but kept such liquors to be used in compounding medicines, and in dispensing the prescriptions of physicians, it was their duty to acquit him.'
(2) 'That the defendant, as a licensed pharmacist, had the right to use in the compounding of his medicines and tinctures all ingredients necessary to their proper preparation, whether such ingredients or any of them were spirituous or intoxicating, or otherwise.'
(3) 'That, the state having licensed the accused to pursue his business and occupation as a pharmacist, the board of commissioners for New London county could not by any action of theirs deprive him of the right to pursue his said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Beeler
...Board of Registration, 239 Mass. 424, 132 N.E. 174, 176. The police power cannot be stipulated or bartered away. Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U.S. 74, 15 S.Ct. 985, 40 L.Ed. 80. In State v. Hovorka, 100 Minn. 249, 252, 110 N.W. 870, 871, 8 L.R.A., N.S., [1272], 1273, 1275, 10 Ann.Cas. 398, it i......
-
Ex Parte Mode
...Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 24 L. Ed. 989; Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 20 Sup. Ct. 633, 44 L. Ed. 725; Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U. S. 74, 15 Sup. Ct. 985, 40 L. Ed. 80; and other cases from the Supreme Court of the United The above are the cases principally relied on by those conten......
-
People v. Woody
...general welfare of society. (Reetz v. People of State of Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563; Gray v. State of Connecticut, 159 U.S. 74, 15 S.Ct. 985, 40 L.Ed. 80; Mugler v. State of Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 295, 31 L.Ed. 205; Sandelin v. Collins, 1 Cal.2d 147, 153,......
-
Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy
...affecting the conduct of the several professions are Meffert v. Packer, supra; Dent v. W. Va., supra; Reetz v. Michigan, supra; Gray v. Conn., supra; McNaughton v. Johnson, supra; Smith v. Texas, supra; v. Steele, supra; N., C. & St. L. v. Alabama, supra; Smith v. State, supra; Watson v. St......