State v. Littlefield

• Decision Date: 27 December 1922
• Citation: 119 A. 113
• Parties: STATE v. LITTLEFIELD.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

119 A. 113

STATE

v. LITTLEFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 27, 1922.

Exceptions from and Motion for New Trial in Supreme Judicial Court, York County, at Daw.

Fred B. Littlefield was convicted of an offense, and he excepts and moves for a new trial. Exceptions overruled.

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

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

Willard & Ford, of Sanford, for defendant.

SPEAR, J. It is admitted that the issue of law in the present case is the same as that upon which State v. Douglass was decided in 121 Me. 137, 116 Atl. 28. It was there said:

"An indictment for selling intoxicating liquor, then, includes cider only when it is sold for tippling purposes, or as a beverage. Therefore a respondent indicted as a common seller for selling cider can be so indicted only upon the hypothesis that he is selling it for tippling purposes, or as a beverage. Hence a respondent so indicted is furnished with knowledge that he is charged, under the statute, with the offense of selling cider for tippling purposes, or as a beverage.

"We are unable therefore, to discern why, when a respondent is charged with being a common seller of intoxicating liquor, he does not have the same knowledge of the offense, when proof is offered in support of the charge that he has sold cider as a beverage, or for tippling purposes, that he would have if proof was offered that he had sold whisky, beer, ale, porter, or some mixed liquor in proof of the same...