State v. Kilbreth
| Decision Date | 21 March 1932 |
| Citation | 159 A. 504 |
| Parties | STATE v. KILBRETH. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Oxford County.
Donald Kilbreth was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he brings exception. Overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, FARRINGTON, and THAXTER, JJ.
E. Walker Abbott, of South Paris, for the State.
Arthur J. Henry, and George A. Hutchins, both of Rumford, for defendant.
The respondent was tried on an indictment charging the sale of intoxicating liquor and was convicted. He brings the case before us on an exception to the refusal of the presiding justice to give the following requested instruction to the jury.
"If you find from all the evidence in this case that the respondent was acting as an agent of the purchasers, and that his only interest, in the matter was to obtain the liquor for them, and to receive as compensation for his services one (1) quart of the liquor which he purchased for them, you would be justified in finding that the respondent was not guilty of making a sale of any part of the liquors as charged in the indictment, because if from all the evidence you find that he was so acting, any liquors which he received would be in payment for his services to the real purchasers, for this would constitute a sale by Smith or Eastman, or both, to the respondent in payment for his services rendered to them."
The respondent's contention was that he acted in the handling of certain alcohol as the representative of the purchaser and not as the agent of the seller. If such were the fact, he could not be found guilty under an indictment which charged him with the sale of it. The requested 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 respondent's request; and the refusal of the court to reiterate what had already been said is not subject to exception.
Exception overruled.
Judgment for the state.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
...when dealing with prosecutions for violation of the liquor law. See, State v. Parady, 1031, 130 Me. 371, 156 A. 381; State v. Kilbreth, 1932, 131 Me. 489, 159 A. 504. These cases were decided under very different statutes. In the prohibition era, it was unlawful to sell any intoxicating liq......