State v. Ennis

Decision Date11 October 1922
PartiesSTATE v. ENNIS.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, York County, at Law.

Jack Ennis was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, PHILBROOK, DUNN, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

Edward S. Titcomb, Co. Atty., of Sanford, for the State.

Stewart & Putnam, of York Village, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The respondent was tried upon the charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and a jury verdict of guilty was returned against him. At the conclusion of the charge to the jury the respondent presented three requested instructions as follows:

First. That the respondent was acting as the agent of the officer in procuring the liquor in question, and is not guilty as charged as a matter of law.

Second. That, if the jury find as a matter of fact that the officer gave the respondent the money to purchase the liquor, and that the respondent afterwards purchased the same with that money, as a matter of law the respondent was acting as the agent of the officer or detective, and is not guilty as charged.

Third. The proving that the respondent was using this agency as a "cover" is on the state.

The transcript of the testimony was made a part of the bill of exceptions. The charge of the presiding justice is not brought before us, and, as no exceptions thereto are noted, we must assume that it contained a full and correct statement of the principles of law governing the case, including full and correct instructions regarding the law of agency in matters like the case at bar.

With reference to the first requested instruction, the presiding justice said:

"I cannot give you that instruction as a matter of law. It is a question of fact, as I have already stated to you, whether he was acting as the agent of the officer, in good faith, or whether the supposed agency is a mere cover."

The refusal to give the requested instruction, and the reason for the refusal, are correct, and in complete harmony with the legal principles governing the trial of criminal causes, whereby the determination of issues of fact is left to a jury.

With reference to the second requested instruction, the presiding justice said:

"I cannot give yon that as a matter of law. It is a question of fact. The mere giving of the money, and mere payment for the liquor in advance, is not decisive of the question of agency."

Here also the refusal to give the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Kilbreth
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 21 Marzo 1932
    ...instruction in so far as it embodied such a statement of the law was proper. State v. Parady, 130 Me. 371, 156 A. 381; State v. Ennis, 121 Me. 596, 118 A. 422. A reading of the judge's charge, however, which is printed in full, indicates that he specifically covered the point raised by the ......
  • State v. Parady
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 9 Octubre 1931
    ...offense, in this state, to purchase liquor either for the use of the purchaser or as an agent or messenger of another. State v. Ennis, 121 Me. 596, 118 A. 422. The general question involved has been the subject of judicial enquiry and decision in many jurisdictions, and the authorities are ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT