State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 18 September 1916 |
| Citation | 98 A. 659 |
| Parties | STATE v. JONES. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Piscataquis County, at Law.
Ellis M. Jones was found guilty, his motion in arrest of judgment overruled, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and KING, BIRD, HALEY, and PHILBROOK, JJ.
James H. Hudson, Co. Atty., of Guilford, for the State. J. S. Williams, of Guilford, and L. G. C. Brown, of Milo, for respondent.
The respondent was found guilty by the jury under an indictment charging him as a common seller of intoxicating liquors, and he brings the case to this court on exceptions to the overruling of his motion in arrest of judgment, and to the refusal to give two requested instructions.
1. In support of his motion in arrest of judgment he contends that the indictment is bad because it avers that the offense was committed on the first day of January, 1915, "and continually thereafter up to the day of the finding of this indictment." We think there is no merit in that contention. The offense, being a continuing one, was properly set out with a continuando, and the form of words used in the indictment for that purpose was appropriate and sufficient. It covers a definite period of time, and there is no uncertainty about it. It is more definite than the allegation, "on divers other days and times between that day and the time of finding of this indictment," which has often been employed and held sufficient in this and other states. The form of words used in alleging the continuando in the indictment in the present case is quoted as an appropriate form of allegation in Bishop on Grim. Procedure, vol. 1, § 394.
The respondent claims, however, that the form of indictment set forth in section 72, c. 29, R. S., which alleges the continuando in the words "and on divers other days and times between" the particular day stated and the day of the finding of the indictment, should have been used. But it is not imperative that the statute form of indictment should be used. The Legislature did not so provide. It declared only that the "forms herein set forth * * * are sufficient in law." The provision of the section that the averments in the forms set forth "are sufficient in law" does not preclude the government from using other averments that are sufficient in law to constitute a good indictment. State v. Reed, 67 Me. 127, 129.
2. The offense of being a common seller of intoxicating liquors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. True
...such recitation does not preclude the use of equivalent language which sufficiently describes the proscribed conduct. State v. Jones, 115 Me. 200, 98 A. 659 (1916); see State v. Webber, 125 Me. 319, 133 A. 738 The indictment before us sufficiently alleges the crime of perjury and is in subs......
-
State v. Webber
...averments that are sufficient in law to constitute a good accusation because statutory forms have been otherwise prescribed. State v. Jones, 115 Me. 201, 98 A. 659; State v. Reed, 67 Me. The entry therefore must be, exception overruled. Exception overruled. Judgment for the state. ...
-
State v. Haapanen
...is unknown, the allegation of such fact. The form is declared by the statute to be sufficient. It is not, however, inclusive. State v. Jones, 115 Me. 200, 98 A. 659. The complaint in this ease, as made to a municipal court, charged the respondent with the sale of intoxicating liquor, but ne......
-
Rockland & Rockport Lime Co. v. Coe-Mortimer Co.
... ... In section 1789 of Wigmore on Evidence the author says: ... "Whenever an utterance is offered to evidence the state of mind which ensued in another person in consequence of the utterance, it is obvious that no assertive or testimonial use is sought to be made of ... ...