State v. Bozek
| Decision Date | 01 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 1931.,1931. |
| Citation | 124 A. 666 |
| Parties | STATE v. BOZEK. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Branch, Judge.
Peter Bozek was found guilty of illegally possessing intoxicating liquor, and case transferred on his exceptions.Exceptions overruled.
The defendant moved for a discharge because the provision of Laws 1919, c. 99, § 20, making possession of intoxicating liquor evidence of illegality, is unconstitutional.He also moved for a directed verdict upon the ground that the evidence showed that the liquor was lawfully procured.The motions were denied subject to exceptions.
There were also exceptions to the admission of evidence and to the argument of the county solicitor, which are, stated in the opinion.
Ferdinand Farley, County Sol., of Manchester, for the State.
Banigan & Banigan, of Manchester, for defendant.
The motion that the defendant be discharged because the statute making possession prima facie evidence of illegality is unconstitutional was properly denied.State v. Lapointe(N. H.)123 Atl. 692.
The motion for a directed verdict is based upon the claim that all the evidence shows that the possession was legal.The statute makes the possession evidence of illegality, sufficient to support a verdict.But the present case does not stop there.The evidence disclosed many facts tending to show that the defendant's conduct in relation to the liquor was illegal.It was concealed beneath the cellar floor, the defendant denied that he had any, but admitted to the officers that "you have got me now," when they discovered the liquor, and be and his wife set up a claim of title in the wife which the jury found to be fictitious.This motion also was properly denied.
The defendant's wife was a witness in his behalf, and claimed that the alcohol found was a part of a stock she bought in 1917 for use in her business as a midwife, that she had used from the stock from that time to the date of the raid, and had not otherwise used or possessed any intoxicants.Subject to exception, the state was permitted to show that a year and a half before the trial she was arraigned in the municipal court upon a charge of illegal possession and pleaded guilty.This admission had a direct tendency to contradict her story of the history and use of the liquor and was competent for that purpose.
The state was permitted to inquire of the defendant, upon cross-examination, how many times the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens v. Mut. Prot. Fire Ins. Co.
...from the plaintiff's viewpoint, of the defendants' position as to the law. Davis v. Avery, 81 N. H. 219, 220, 123 A. 699; State v. Bozek, 81 N. H. 277, 278, 124 A. 666; Williams v. Railroad, 82 N. H. 253, 132 A. Neither exception to the allowance of the arguments can be sustained. Judgment ......
-
Cutrona v. The Mayor and Council of Wilmington
... 124 A. 658 14 Del.Ch. 208 SAMUEL CUTRONA, v. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF WILMINGTON, a Municipal corporation of the State of Delaware Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle May 9, 1924 ... [124 A. 659] ... INJUNCTION BILL. The Board of Directors ... ...
-
H. P. Welch Co. v. State
...their existence (State v. Foster, 23 N.H. 348, 55 Am.Dec. 191; State v. Lapointe, 81 N.H. 227, 123 A. 692, 31 A.L.R. 1212; State v. Bozek, 81 N.H. 277, 124 A. 666), and full opportunity was given to it to do Since the days specified for the suspension of the company's certificates have pass......
-
Of Tax Comm'n v. Borofsky.
...long as there is a rational connection between the fact to be proved and the fact presumed, the statute is valid. State v. Bozek, 81 N.H. 277, 124 A. 666; 162 A.L.R. 495, 532. This is particularly so in this jurisdiction since ‘prima facie evidence, as here used, means evidence to be consid......