State v. Chartrand

• Decision Date: 17 August 1894
• Citation: 30 A. 10,86 Me 547
• Parties: STATE v. CHARTRAND.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

30 A. 10

86 Me 547

STATE

v. CHARTRAND.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 17, 1894.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme Judicial court, Androscoggin county.

Complaint and process against Ulric Chartrand for the seizure of intoxicating liquors. Verdict against defendant There was an order denying a motion for arrest of judgment, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

The defendant, having been convicted on a search and seizure process, filed the following motion in arrest of judgment:

"And now, after trial and verdict of guilty, and before judgment, the said Ulric Chartrand comes, etc., and says that judgment ought not to be rendered against him, because he says that said complaint and the warrant annexed thereto, and the matters therein alleged, in the manner and form in which they are therein stated, are not sufficient in law for any Judgment to be rendered thereon, and the said complaint and warrant are bad in the following particulars:

"The said complaint was made and sworn to by the complainant, P. L. Odlin, before the clerk of the Lewiston municipal court, and the said warrant was signed and issued by said clerk. The said process of complaint and warrant was therefore illegal, unconstitutional, and void.

"Said warrant contains a command to the officer executing it to search the person of the defendant, Ulric Chartrand, if he shall have reason to believe that said defendant has the intoxicating liquors mentioned in said complaint concealed about his person; and there being no corresponding allegation in the said complaint, or prayer for process to search the person of the defendant, Ulric Chartrand, said warrant was illegal, unconstitutional, and void.

"All acts of the legislature purporting to grant power to the said clerk of the Lewiston municipal court to hear all complaints, and to sign and issue all warrants, in criminal cases, are ultra vires, and unconstitutional and void.

"Wherefore he prays that judgment on said verdict may be arrested, and that he may be hence dismissed and discharged."

The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

Frank L. Noble, for defendant. Henry W. Oakes, Co. Atty., for the State.

FOSTER, J. Search and seizure process. After verdict, a motion in arrest of judgment was filed, which was overruled, and to this ruling the defendant excepts.

The ground of arrest which is relied on is that the warrant contains a command to the officer not set out in the complaint.

The complaint and...