State v. Small
| Decision Date | 28 June 1888 |
| Parties | STATE v. SMALL. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Knox county.
Indictment for common seller of intoxicating liquors, set out with a continuando. Defendant alleged exceptions to the admission of evidence of acts not happening within the days alleged.
J. H. H. Hewett, Co. Atty., for the State. Robinson & Howell, for defendant.
In setting out in an indictment an offense which consists of a single act, though an allegation of the time of its commission is necessary, still the evidence of such act is not confined to the time alleged, but may be of acts which took place at any time before the finding of the indictment, and within the period allowed by the statute of limitations. Bac. Abr. "Indictment," G 4; Com. v. Traverse, 11 Allen, 260. When the offense consists of a series of acts, a day certain must be alleged, and the time is material, and no evidence of the commission of the acts on any other day is admissible. Com. v. Elwell, 1 Gray, 463; Com. v. Gardner, 7 Gray, 494; Com. v. Sullivan, 5 Allen, 513. Such offenses are frequently and rightfully set out with a continuando; and, when so set out, time is material, and evidence is confined to acts which happened within the days alleged. State v. Cofren, 48 Me. 364, 366; Com. v. Briggs, 11 Metc. 573; Com. v. Chisholm, 103 Mass. 213; Com. v. Dunster, 145 Mass. 101, 13 N. E. Rep. 350; Com. v. Purdy, 15 N. E. Rep. 364. And an indictment containing such allegations may be supported by proof of the commission of the offense during any part of the period named. Com. v. Wood, 4 Gray, 11; Com. v. Connors, 116 Mass. 35. Exceptions sustained.
1 Reported by Leslie C. Cornish, Esq., of the Augusta bar.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Maguire
...... sustain the indictment, except where time enters into the. nature of the offense.". . . See,. also, in further illustration of this rule, Commonwealth. v. Pray, 30 Mass. 359, 13 Pick. 359; Commonwealth v. Adams, 70 Mass. 27, 4 Gray 27; State v. Small,. 80 Me. 452, 14 A. 942. . . In the. case of State v. Reno, 41 Kan. 674, 21 P. 803, Mr. Justice Valentine of the Kansas supreme court criticizes the. Massachusetts. [169 P. 178] . and Maine cases, and states that the rule is peculiar to. those states alone. . . ......
-
State v. Dufour
...in some other jurisdictions on the strength of the precedent of the Massachusetts cases. Brevaldo v. State, 21 Fla. 789;State v. Small, 80 Me. 452, 14 Atl. 942;Fleming v. State, 28 Tex. App. 234,12 S. W. 605. We do not find that this rule has elsewhere obtained. Indeed, Holmes, J., speaking......
-
State v. Dufour
...in some other jurisdictions on the strength of the precedent of the Massachusetts cases. Brevaldo v. State, 21 Fla. 789; State v. Small, 80 Me. 452, 14 A. 942; v. State, 28 Tex.App. 234, 12 S.W. 605. We do not find that this rule has elsewhere obtained. Indeed, Holmes, J., speaking for the ......
-
State v. Stevens
...State v. Brown, 14 N.D. 529, 104 N.W. 1112; Storey v. Chandler, 15 A. 223; State v. O'Donnell, 17 A. 66; State v. Beaton, 9 A. 728; State v. Small, 14 A. 942; Wells Commowealth, 12 Gray. 326; 22 Cyc. 319, and cases cited; 23 Cyc. 227, and cases cited. Incompetent and insufficient testimony ......