State v. Stanley

Decision Date18 January 1909
CourtVermont Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. STANLEY.

Exceptions from Franklin County Court; Willard W. Miles, Judge.

Henry I. Stanley was informed against for cruelty to animals. From a judgment overruling defendant's motion to dismiss the information, defendant excepted. Affirmed, and cause remanded.

Argued before ROWELL. C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, and WATSON, JJ.

F. S. Tupper, State's Atty., for the State.

P. H. Coleman, for defendant.

MUNSON, J. This is an information under section 4993 of chapter 217 of the Vermont Statutes, entitled "Cruelty to Animals." The respondent moves to dismiss the information because of proceedings before a justice on complaint of the state's attorney for the same offense, in which the justice bound him over instead of disposing of the case, and also because there was no service of the information. The record of the binding over on complaint is presented as a part of the files in the case by a reference in the bill of exceptions. No point was made in the county court, and none has been made here, as to the propriety of this use of a motion to dismiss; and we dispose of the case without reference to that question, following the course taken in Squires v. Squires, 53 Vt. 208, 38 Am. Rep. 668. See, also, State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 44 Vt. 208, 216. Section 5002 of this chapter gives county courts and justices concurrent jurisdiction of offenses under the preceding sections of the chapter. V. S. 1926, gives justices jurisdiction to try and determine criminal prosecutions where the punishment is by fine not exceeding $10, and the same authority in other criminal causes where jurisdiction is given them, although the punishment is by fine exceeding $10. By V. S. 1940, a justice may cause one charged with a crime exceeding his jurisdiction to try to be apprehended and committed to jail or bound over for trial by the county court. Where one statute confers a limited jurisdiction over offenses generally, and another a larger jurisdiction as to certain specified offenses, the latter must ordinarily be given effect according to its terms. The two will stand together—one as the law of the general subject, the other as the law of the particular offense. Bish. St. Cr. § 126.

But the state contends that the second clause of V. S. 1926, relating to cases where jurisdiction is specially given, shows that the penalty of imprisonment was not contemplated, and would treat this as limiting the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Edward Van Ness
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 3 May 1938
    ...99 Vt. 306, 324, 131 A. 847, but the case before the Court did not require a discussion of it in any aspect here involved. State v. Stanley, 82 Vt. 37, 71 A. 817, an information filed in the county court for cruelty to animals. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the information becaus......
  • In re John B. James
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 6 January 1926
    ... ... him to operate motor busses on the public highway in and ... between the villages of Bennington and North Bennington in ... this State ... [132 A. 42] ... After due notice and hearing on the merits of his ... application, the Commission found and stated the facts, and ... made ... and harmonized, if possible, with a view to giving effect to ... a consistent legislative policy (State v ... Stanley, 82 Vt. 37, 71 A. 817; 36 Cyc. 1151); but to ... the extent of any repugnancy between them, the special will ... prevail over the general statute, ... ...
  • State v. Van Ness, III.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 3 May 1938
    ...99 Vt. 306, 324, 131 A. 847, but the case before the court did not require a discussion of it in any aspect here involved. State v. Stanley, 82 Vt. 37, 71 A. 817, was an information filed in the county court for cruelty to animals. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the information be......
  • In re James
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 6 January 1926
    ...the two should be read together and harmonized, if possible, with a view to giving effect to a consistent legislative policy (State v. Stanley, 82 Vt. 37, 71 A. 817; 36 Cyc. 1151), but to the extent of any repugnancy between them, the special will prevail over the general statute, regardles......
  • 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