State v. Ouellette
| Decision Date | 14 September 1910 |
| Citation | 107 Me. 92,77 A. 544 |
| Parties | STATE v. OUELLETTE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County.
Vital Ouellette was convicted of maintaining a common nuisance, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Argued before EMERY, C. J., and PEABODY, CORNISH, KING, and BIRD, JJ.
W. H. Judkins, for plaintiff.
Frank A. Morey, Co. Atty., for the State.
This cause was an indictment against the respondent, Vital Ouellette, and one Archie Le Blanc, for maintaining a common nuisance defined by section 1, c. 22, Rev. St.
The prohibited acts specified in the indictment were the keeping and maintaining a certain place used for the illegal sale and for the illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors, and where intoxicating liquors were sold for tippling purposes, and which place was a place of resort where intoxicating liquors were unlawfully kept, sold, given away, drank, and dispensed.
On trial the respondent Le Blanc was acquitted, and the respondent Ouellette was found guilty by the jury. At the trial the attorney for the state introduced evidence proving that Ouellette had paid a special United States internal revenue tax as a retail liquor dealer, covering the time specified in the indictment, and this was also admitted by him in his testimony.
This respondent claimed in his testimony, as the reason why he took out the license, that he was compelled to do so by Mr. Turner, the internal revenue officer, who, in a conversation with him, after inquiry as to what goods he had on bis shelves, said: "'Mr. Ouellette, this business that you are connected with in the store, and what you got on the shelf, you have got to have a revenue tax.' Well, I told him I didn't know whether I would take one or not. I says: That is the notice he give me. Then I says: 'I will see later on.'
Circulars Nos. 713 and 727, marked Exhibits Defendant 1 and 2, were identified by Ouellette as papers received from Mr. Turner. These circulars were subsequently offered in evidence by counsel for the respondent and, on objection by the attorney for the state, were excluded by the court. Inspection shows them to be lists of alcoholic medicinal preparations for the sale of which the special tax of liquor dealer is required under rulings of the commissioner of internal revenue.
Payment of the tax was relied upon by the state, under the provisions of section 49, c. 29, Rev. St., against the respondent as prima facie evidence of his guilt, and it was his right to explain his action. State v. Morin, 102 Me. 290, 66 Atl. 650. He contends that what took place at the interview between him and the revenue officer, Mr. Turner, Shows a reason for his paying the tax consistent with innocence, and that the circulars given him were themselves part of the acts of the officer and were erroneously excluded. We think they were technically relevant and admissible, not in a strict legal sense, as a part of the res gestae which made their admission...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jutras
...defendant must also demonstrate that such ruling was prejudicial to it. Pitcher v. Webber, 104 Me. 401, 71 A. 1031; State v. Ouellette, 107 Me. 92, 77 A. 544.' In Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., the author g 966 '* * * There is no doubt that the interest of a party or of a witness in the event......
-
Page v. Hemingway Bros. Interstate Trucking Co.
...defendant must also demonstrate that such ruling was prejudicial to it. Pitcher v. Webber, 104 Me. 401, 71 A. 1031; State v. Quellette, 107 Me. 92, 77 A. 544. The record clearly shows that the ruling of the Justice presiding was not prejudicial to defendant. The transcript of the evidence s......
-
Malia v. Lewiston, A. & W. St. Ry. Co.
... ... The two cases arose from the same state of facts, and were tried together upon the same evidence. They come to the law court on motions to set aside the verdicts as against the evidence ... ...