State v. Farmer

• Decision Date: 07 April 1892
• Citation: 24 A. 985,84 Me. 436
• Parties: STATE v. FARMER.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

24 A. 985

84 Me. 436

STATE

v. FARMER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 7, 1892.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Franklin county.

Samuel Farmer was convicted of keeping and maintaining a liquornuisance, and excepts. Exceptions overruled.

After the verdict, the defendant moved in an arrest of judgment, and filed the following reasons: (1) Said indictment sets out no offense against the respondent. (2) Everything alleged may be true, and consistent with the innocence of the accused. (3) The two counts in the indictment are inconsistent with each other. (4) It does not appear on what provision of the statute the indictment is found. (5) There was an attempt to set out distinct offenses in the two counts, and the record cannot show under which the verdict was found. (6) The record cannot show whether the verdict was found for using said building for the illegal sales of liquor, for the illegal keeping of liquors, for keeping a place of resort where liquors were drank, given away, or in any manner dispensed. (7) The indictment is otherwise defective and insufficient in-law.

The presiding justice overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted. A witness called by the state was allowed to testify, against respondent's objection, and to read to the jury from a small diary, the following, which he testified he copied from a book of records in the office of the collector of internal revenue, comprising the district of Maine, at Portsmouth, N. H., viz.: "Samuel Farmer, R. L. D., Phillips, date of payment, June 30, 1890,$20.83, from July, 1890, to April 30, 1891. Serial No. of stamp 190,338." In his testimony the defendant admitted the facts disclosed by the "examined copy" of the record from the office of the collector of internal revenue. After the defendant had testified as a witness in his own behalf, the government was allowed, against respondent's objection, to introduce a record of conviction of respondent at the October term of said court, 1864, as a common seller of intoxicating liquors on the 1st day of November, A. D. 1863, and on various other days and times, with a continuando, to which the respondent pleaded guilty, and was fined $100, and costs taxed at $69.99.

In his charge to the jury the presiding justice, inter alia, said :

"The counsel for the state says, in the first place, in substance, that, taking the literal translation of a familiar Latin maxim, the thing itself speaks; that the situation found by this officer speaks of the intent of the accused with a power that overbalances and silences all explanations that can be or have been given. He says that it is important for you to consider what the conduct and the expressions of the accused were at the time of the search; that when a person is first confronted with a charge of violating the law his conduct and language may be significant and of weight in determining the question of guilt or innocence, for it is said that the language of innocence is always instinctively the language of truth. * * *

"The legislature simply affirmed a principle of evidence in enacting this statute. They expressed their opinion in regard to what force and effect ought to be given to a piece of testimony of that kind; that, if unexplained and uncontradicted, it ought to be held satisfactory proof of the guilt of the accused; that you ought to consider the usual motives which operate upon and control men who are engaged in business;...