State v. Muscarello
| Decision Date | 03 November 1942 |
| Citation | 29 A.2d 115 |
| Parties | STATE v. MUSCARELLO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Lorimer, Judge.
Complaint against Angelo J. Muscarello for bringing into the state more than three quarts of intoxicating liquor legally bought in Maine. Transferred without ruling.
Case discharged.
Complaint, for bringing into the state more than three quarts of intoxicating liquor legally bought in Maine. On appeal from a municipal court conviction the question whether the complaint sets forth an offence has been transferred without ruling by Lorimer, J.
Stephen M. Wheeler, Acting Atty. Gen., and Ernest R. D'Amours, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Arthur J. Reinhart, of Portsmouth, for defendant.
The Spirituous Liquor and Beverages Act, Rev.Laws, c. 170, contains a section (§ 33) with the title of Transportation and a following section (§ 34) entitled Possession. The former section forbids the transportation "in the state" of more than three quarts of liquor unless it was bought at a state store. The State Liquor Commission on application may permit the transportation of not over three gallons bought elsewhere if it is for personal use. Other provisions of the section permit transportation for special purposes by common carriers, licensees and manufacturers. The latter section (§ 34) reads: "No person shall possess, transport, procure, furnish or give away any liquor except such as has been sold under the provisions of this act or legally purchased outside the state and except as otherwise provided herein."
One purpose of the act is to obtain revenue for the State, and one clear design of the former section (§ 33) is to restrict competition with the state stores. If liquor might be purchased outside the state in substantial quantities and brought into the state, the competitive factor might be serious. It is improbable that the ensuing section (§ 34) was intended to materially lessen the restraint of competition, as would be the case if the defendant's position were sound. To say that no more than three quarts of liquor may be transported unless bought at a state store and then to permit transportation in any quantity if the liquor is legally bought outside the state, would also tend to facilitate illegal sales.
As its heading shows, the latter section (§ 34) is designed to define illegal possession with features incidental to it. In due construction it does not modify the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carling Brewing Co. v. Liquor Commission of N. H.
...directly or indirectly. RSA 181:27; Nashua Wholesale Grocers v. State Liquor Commission, 95 N.H. 224, 60 A.2d 124; State v. Muscarello, 92 N.H. 214, 29 A.2d 115; New Hampshire Wholesale Beverage Ass'n v. New Hampshire State Liquor Commission, 100 N.H. 5, 116 A.2d 885. The legislative purpos......
-
State v. Small
...of the act have been construed in accordance with the legislative intent even though expressed in awkward phraseology. State v. Muscarello, 92 N.H. 214, 29 A.2d 115. The only leak in this statutory dike has been a legislative indulgence toward the sale or delivery of cider which has not bee......
-
Chagnon v. Union-Leader Corp.
...purpose. Therefore, these actions, not being within the spirit of the legislation, are not covered by the statute. State v. Muscarello, 92 N.H. 214, 215, 29 A.2d 115. In each case, the Court must seek the specific intent of the lawmakers in the particular legislation, and once disclosed, it......
-
Nashua Wholesale Grocers Inc. v. State Liquor Comm'n., 3759.
...been construed in accordance with the intention of the legislature, ‘though not within the letter’ of the statute. State v. Muscarello, 92 N.H. 214, 215, 29 A.2d 115, 116. With certain limited exceptions not material here, the legislature has provided that the three general classes of manuf......