People v. Abell

• Decision Date: 25 May 1897
• Citation: 71 N.W. 509,113 Mich. 80
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. ABELL.

71 N.W. 509

113 Mich. 80

PEOPLE v. ABELL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 25, 1897

Exceptions from circuit court, Van Buren county; George M. Buck, Judge.

Charles Abell was convicted of selling liquor to be used as a beverage, he being a druggist. A new trial was denied, and he brings exceptions. Reversed.

Fred A. Maynard, Atty., Gen., and James E Chandler, Pros. Atty., for the People.

Osborn Mills & Master, for defendant.

LONG C.J.

Respondent is a druggist. He was charged with the offense of selling two drinks of whisky, to be used as a beverage, and on trial before a jury was convicted. The whisky, it was claimed, was sold to Willard E. Symonds. He testified on cross-examination that he went into respondent's store for the purpose of getting him to make the sale, so that he could make the complaint. In speaking of the date when the whisky was sold the witness stated that he was trusting entirely to his memory. He added: "I know I went over to Mr Hopkins' office, and told him then what I was going to do, and I know I went back directly afterwards, and told what I had done." The witness further stated that Mr. Hopkins was a member of the Law and Order League. The prosecuting attorney thereupon stated, "In view of the cross-examination, I will call Mr. Hopkins." He was asked if Mr. Hopkins' name was on the information, and admitted that it was not. The defendant's counsel objected to his being called, whereupon the prosecuting attorney stated: "I simply want to show that this witness went to him on the 3d day of February, and related what he has told counsel, on the 3d day of February,-what he told him." Counsel for respondent excepted to this statement in presence of the jury. The court thereupon said: "Counsel would have a right to state what he proposed to prove. The jury, of course, will not pay any attention to it. It is not for the jury, but is entirely for the hearing of the court. The jury should disregard any statement of the kind. I think it would be objectionable to call him in view of the fact that his name is not on the information." This is claimed to be error prejudicial to the rights of the respondent. In this contention we think counsel is correct. Mr. Symonds had testified that when the liquor was sold one Samuel W. Bowerman was with him, and drank one glass of whisky, which witness ordered. Mr Bowerman was called by the people, and denied emphatically that any such thing...