State v. Butler

• Decision Date: 18 January 1915
• Citation: 113 Me. 1,92 A. 819
• Parties: STATE v. BUTLER.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

92 A. 819

113 Me. 1

STATE

v. BUTLER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 18, 1915.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Kennebec County, at Law.

Odilon Butler was convicted of illegally keeping a tippling shop, and he brings exceptions. Sustained.

Argued before SPEAR, CORNISH, KING, BIRD, and HANSON, JJ.

William H. Fisher, County Attorney, of Augusta, for the State.

Pattengall & Plumstead, of Waterville, for defendant.

SPEAR, J. This case involves an indictment against Odilon Butler in the usual form for keeping a drinking house and tippling shop. He was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and was put upon trial. The bill of exceptions states the case:

"During the progress of the trial the county attorney introduced the testimony of two deputy sheriffs, namely, Charles H. Farrington and John Roderick. Neither of them gave evidence or was requested to give evidence with regard to having any knowledge of his own that the respondent maintained a tippling shop or was guilty of any infraction of the prohibitory law under the indictment on which he was arraigned. But the following testimony was given by them. Deputy Sheriff Farrington was asked the following questions by the county attorney:

"'Q. State to the jury whether or not prior to the 21st day of February last, you had had complaints relative to the place run by Mr. Butler.'

"Counsel for the respondent objected to the question and the objection was overruled, whereupon he seasonably excepted to the admission of the question and answer. Deputy Sheriff Farrington answered the question in the affirmative. Deputy Sheriff Roderick was asked the following questions and gave the following answers while being examined in chief by the county attorney: 'Q. Have you had any complaints relative to the place run by the respondent Butler? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, if so, what was the nature of them? A. The complaint was that there has been liquor sold in the place.' To the admission of these questions and answers counsel for the respondent objected, and the objections being overruled, seasonably excepted to the ruling of the court. Neither of these witnesses testified or was asked to testify about any facts tending to verify the truth of the complaints which they stated had been made to them."

This evidence so far as appears was not offered as preliminary to or as a part of any other testimony tending to show that these witnesses had any information regarding the character of the defendant's business other than the complaints made by undisclosed persons. This testimony offered in chief by the state, consisting of the sole statement on the part of the witnesses,...