State v. Small
Decision Date | 25 February 1955 |
Citation | 111 A.2d 201,99 N.H. 349 |
Parties | STATE v. Charles M. SMALL. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Louis C. Wyman, Atty. Gen., and Arthur E. Bean, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Jerome L. Silverstein, Nashua, for defendant.
The motion to quash the complaint and warrant is based on the contention that the statute does not apply to the defendant. The statute R.L. c. 170, § 39 reads as follows: (Emphasis supplied.)
The defendant claims that the general phrase 'nor any other person' must be restricted in meaning to the specific words that precede it such as licensees and sales agents. This is a rule of statutory construction known as ejusdem generis. 'Where general words follow specific words in an enumeration describing the legal subject, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.' 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3rd Ed., Horack) § 4909. As an aid in determining legislative intent, the rule has been employed in this state, Hannon v. Kerr, 85 N.H. 386, 159 A. 121; State v. New Hampshire Gas & Electric Co., 86 N.H. 16, 163 A. 724, 'unless a broader construction' in necessary to give effect to the legislative meaning. Keene v. Union School District, 89 N.H. 477, 481, 200 A. 514, 517. Since the defendant is not a licensee or a sales agent and did not act in any similar capacity, it is argued that the statute does not make it a crime for individuals generally to sell or give away intoxicating liquor and beverages to minors.
It is well established that the rule of ejusdem generis is neither final nor exclusive and is always subject to the qualification that general words will not be used in a restricted sense if the act as a whole indicates a different legislative purpose in view of the objectives to be attained. 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, supra, § 4914. As a general rule the use of Latin phrases to solve problems of statutory construction has not been a marked success. Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215, 220, 29 S.Ct. 252, 253, 53 L.Ed. 480. The crux of the matter is that the rule of ejusdem generis is only a constructionary crutch and not a judicial ukase in the ascertainment of legislative intention.
For more than a century the statutory regulation and control of intoxicating liquor and beverages has included prohibitions against the sale and delivery of such intoxicants to minors. See State v. Roberts, 74 N.H. 476, 69 A. 722, 16 L.R.A., N.S., 1115; State v. Bean, 75 N.H. 122, 71 A. 216. Then, as now, minors may not serve or handle them, R.L. c. 170, § 40, and as recently as 1951 it was made a crime for a minor to falsify his age to obtain intoxicating beverages. R.L. c. 170, § 39-a, as inserted by Laws 1951, c. 150. Chapter 170 has been construed as intended to provide a complete and well-rounded system for the regulation and control of all intoxicating liquors. Nashua Wholesale Grocers v. State Liquor Commission, 95 N.H. 224, 60 A.2d 124. Likewise the prohibitory features of the act have been construed in accordance...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Goguen 8212 1254 v. 12 8212 13, 1973
...to those previously enumerated in the statute. 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 4909 (3d rev. ed. Horack 1943); State v. Small, 99 N.H. 349, 111 A.2d 201 (1955); State v. N.H. Gas & Electric Co., 86 N.H. 16, 163 A. 724 (1932).' Id., at 227, 305 A.2d, at * To the extent that counsel fo......
-
State v. Wilson, 2015-0404
...State v. New Hampshire Gas & Electric Co., 86 N.H. 16, 25, 163 A. 724 (1932) (emphasis added); see also State v. Small, 99 N.H. 349, 351, 111 A.2d 201 (1955) (noting that "the rule of ejusdem generis is neither final nor exclusive and is always subject to the qualification that general word......
-
Owen of Georgia, Inc. v. Shelby County
...different meaning from the specific words or be meaningless. More recently, the New Hampshire Supreme Court opined in State v. Small, 99 N.H. 349, 111 A.2d 201, 202 (1955): It is well established that the rule of ejusdem generis is neither final nor exclusive and is always subject to the qu......
-
State v. Moore
...purpose in view of the objectives to be obtained." Regan, 164 N.H. at 9, 48 A.3d 920 (quotation omitted); see State v. Small, 99 N.H. 349, 350, 111 A.2d 201 (1955) ("As an aid in determining legislative intent, the rule has been employed in this state unless a broader construction is necess......