State v. Lotti
| Citation | 47 A. 392,72 Vt. 115 |
| Parties | STATE v. LOTTI. |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1900 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Exceptions from Washington county court.
Rocco Lotti was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and files exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
The only exception was to the instruction recited below. The testimony to which the instruction was applicable was given by the respondent and sufficiently appears from the opinion. The court instructed the jury that while the respondent had a right to keep wine and ale to use himself, or for the use of his wife, mother, and children, and for members of his private family, if they found that he kept such wine and ale with the intent to furnish the same to his boarders for hire, as testified by the respondent, such keeping would be in violation of law, and the jury would be warranted in returning a verdict of guilty.
Argued before TAFT, C. J., and ROWELL, TYLER, MUNSON, THOMPSON, and WATSON, JJ.
Richard A. Hoar, State's Atty., for the State.
Lord & Carleton and F. L. Laird, for respondent.
The respondent kept a boarding house, with 16 boarders and lodgers, and 2 or 3 boarders. At dinner and supper he furnished them with ale and wine, and they were accustomed to drink it. The boarders and lodgers paid the respondent 60 cents per day for their board and lodging. The furnishing of the ale and wine by the respondent to his boarders, as a part of their meals, was, in effect, a sale to them of so much ale and wine as they drank, and the keeping of it by the respondent for that purpose was unlawful. The case is not within section 4462, V. S., providing that the words "give away," as used in chapter 187, V. S., shall not apply to the giving away of liquors by a person in his private dwelling. The question was whether the transaction was a sale, not a gift, and the case was submitted upon the ground that the ale and wine were furnished for pay, as a part of the meals. There was testimony to support the claim, the charge was correct, and the verdict must stand. If a "person in his private dwelling" furnishes a man his dinner, and with it, and as a part of it, intoxicating liquors, and receives pay for it, such transaction is a sale of the liquors so furnished. Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings, and the respondent takes nothing by his exceptions. The judgment rendered upon the verdict in the county court is affirmed, and sentence and execution ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co.
...was not adverted to and very likely was not applicable to the facts there presented. Precisely the same point was held in State v. Lotti, 72 Vt. 115, 47 Atl. 392. The defendant in Commonwealth v. Warren, 160 Mass. 533, 36 N. E. 308, was charged with selling milk not of good standard quality......
-
Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co.
...of sale, was not adverted to and very likely was not applicable to the facts there presented. Precisely the same point was held in State v. Lotti, 72 Vt. 115. The defendant Commonwealth v. Warren, 160 Mass. 533, was charged with selling milk not of good standard quality contrary to St. 1886......
-
Stanfield v. F.W. Woolworth Co.
...to his guests at their meals, the price of the meal covering the price of the liquor, is guilty of having sold the liquor. State v. Lotti, 72 Vt. 115, 47 A. 392; State Wenzel, 72 N.H. 396, 56 A. 918; Savage v. State, 50 Tex.Cr.R. 199, 88 S.W. 351; Scanlon v. City of Denver, 38 Colo. 401, 88......
-
Brevoort Hotel Co. v. Ames
...v. Clair, 221 N. Y. 108, 116 N. E. 868, L. R. A. 1917F, 766;Commonwealth v. Miller, 131 Pa. 118, 18 A. 938,6 L. R. A. 633;State v. Lotti, 72 Vt. 115, 47 A. 392;Commonwealth v. Phoenix Hotel Co., 157 Ky. 180, 162 S. W. 823. We are of the opinion that the business of serving food in a restaur......