State v. Martel

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
Citation103 Me. 63,68 A. 454
PartiesSTATE v. MARTEL.
Decision Date10 September 1907

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County.

Indictment against Charles Martel, as a common seller of intoxicating liquors, second offense, under the provisions of Rev. St. c. 20, § 42. The time alleged in the indictment was from May 1, 1905, to the time when the indictment was found, to wit, at the January term, 1906, of the Supreme Judicial Court. On this indictment the defendant was tried at the same term, and was found guilty.

During the trial the defendant took exceptions to certain rulings of the presiding justice admitting certain evidence. The defendant also excepted to certain alleged misconduct on the part of the state's attorney in his closing argument to the jury. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before EMERY, O. J., and WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, PEABODY, CORNISH, and KING, JJ.

Ralph W. Crockett, Co. Atty., for the State. Newell & Skelton, for defendant.

PEABODY, J. This case is a criminal prosecution on an indictment found at the January term, 1906, of the Supreme Judicial Court for Androscoggin county, against the defendant as a common seller of intoxicating liquors, in which a second offense is also alleged. The time which includes the offense is from May 1, 1905, to the finding of the indictment at said term.

The verdict of the jury was for the state.

The case is before the law court on the defendant's exceptions to the ruling of the court admitting certain testimony against seasonable objections, also to remarks made by the attorney for the state in his closing argument to the jury against the protest of the defendant's counsel.

The first exception is to the admission of an examined copy of the record of special liquor taxes in the internal revenue office at Portsmouth, N. H., showing payment of a retail liquor dealers' tax by the Tingwick Bottling Company from July 1, 1904, to July 1, 1905, at 127 Lincoln street, Lewiston, Me., and further showing payment by the same company of a tax as wholesale dealers in malt liquors for the same period, at 84 Lincoln alley, in said Lewiston.

The admissibility of this kind of evidence has been sustained by the decisions of this court interpreting the statute now incorporated in Rev. St. c. 29, § 49. State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 80 Me. 57, 12 Atl. 794; State v. Daniel O'Connell, 82 Me. 30, 19 Atl. 86.

The defendant himself testifies that from July 1, 1904, to February 1, 1905, he was the owner and sole occupant of the building at 127 Lincoln street, and the owner of the building at 84 Lincoln alley from July 1, 1904, to the date of the trial. The internal revenue record shows that he paid a wholesale liquor dealers' tax at 127 Lincoln street covering the period of one year from July 1, 1904. From the testimony of Mr. Hudson, a witness for the state, which is the subject of the second exception, but which we believe admissible, it appears that Martel gave orders and exercised control in relation to large quantities of intoxicating liquors consigned to the Tingwick Bottling Company, and that he was the only person with whom the witness had any talk in regard to the bottling company liquors. These circumstances make the relevancy of the internal revenue records clearly apparent in this case as evidence competent to show that the defendant, if not the owner of the liquors, assisted the common seller in the business.

The remaining exceptions relate to the alleged improper statements of the prosecuting attorney.

As is permitted to the debater in parlamentary contests, the legal advocate may employ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • State v. Ferrone
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1921
    ... ... 460, 33 N.W. 821, 11 ... Am.St.Rep. 512; Anderson v. State, 104 Ala. 87, 16 ... So. 108; McDonald v. People, 126 Ill. 150, 18 N.E ... 817, 9 Am.St.Rep. 547; State v. Greenleaf, 71 N.H ... 606, 615, 54 A. 38; People v. Fong Sing, 38 Cal.App ... 253, 175 P. 911; State v. Martel, 103 Me. 63, 68 A ... 454; People v. Fielding, 158 N.Y. 542, 53 N.E. 497, ... 46 L.R.A. 641, 70 Am.St.Rep. 495 ... In ... Tucker v. Henniker, 41 N.H. 317, 323, the court said: ... " It would seem utterly vain, and quite useless, to ... caution jurors, in the progress of a trial, ... ...
  • State v. Reilly
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1982
    ...ability to "employ wit, satire, invective, and imaginative illustration...." Conner, 434 A.2d at 512, quoting State v. Martel, 103 Me. 63, 66, 68 A. 454, 455 (1907). This license, however, is strictly confined to the domain of facts in evidence. Conner, 434 A.2d at 512; Martel, 103 Me. at 6......
  • State v. Mottram
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1962
    ...I mean 'evidence'; I am sorry.' The error complained of is reached by a motion for new trial and not by exceptions. State v. Martel, 103 Me. 63, 68 A. 454; State v. Carter, 121 Me. 116, 115 A. 820. We have, however, considered the issue as properly raised and conclude there has been no erro......
  • State v. Conner
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1981
    ...both in civil and criminal trials, but in this the license is strictly confined to the domain of facts in evidence." State v. Martel, 103 Me. 63, 66, 68 A. 454, 455 (1907); see State v. Britt, 288 N.C. 699, 711-12, 220 S.E.2d 283, 291 "The long-standing rule in Maine is that it is within th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT