State v. Suitor

Decision Date02 February 1906
Citation63 A. 182,78 Vt. 391
PartiesSTATE v. SUITOR.
CourtVermont Supreme Court

Exceptions from Caledonia County Court; James M. Tyler, Judge.

Thomas Suitor was convicted of keeping liquor for sale contrary to law, and brings exceptions. Affirmed.

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and MUNSON, START, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.

Frank D. Thompson, and David E. Porter, for the State. M. M. Gordo a and Harland B. Howe, for respondent.

POWERS, J. The respondent is charged by information with keeping intoxicating liquor for sale contrary to law. The state's evidence tended to show that certain police officers on four different occasions searched the respondent's premises in Hardwick for intoxicating liquor under the authority of certain search warrants issued there for; that they found on one occasion, in a cellar occupied by one Hall as respondent's tenant, adjacent to the respondent's pool room and separated there from by a board partition, a barrel partially filled with ale; that the barrel had a faucet in it and stood upon a box a little above and about a foot from a hole in said partition big enough to admit a man's hand; that the barrel was so placed that the faucet faced this hole, which opened into the space in closed by a counter or bar in the respondent's pool room; that this bar was supplied with glasses, some of which were described as whisky glasses; that on one of these searches a large quantity of liquors of various kinds was found in a trunk in the tenement over the pool room, which tenement was occupied by Hall as aforesaid; that on another occasion two or three bottles of liquor were found in the dining room of the tenement; that a large number of empty bottles were found on the place, and an empty whisky keg in the barn; that a piece of rubber hose was found in Hall's part, which the state claimed was used to draw ale from the barrel mentioned; that drunken men were seen in and about the respondent's place on different occasions. The faucet, rubber hose, and liquor found were brought away and produced and used as exhibits at the trial. The policemen were allowed to testify fully as to all they saw and found while making the searches. The respondent seasonably objected to the testimony of these policemen and specified six grounds of exception thereto, all based upon the alleged illegality of such searches and of the warrants under which they were made. The evidence was properly received, for the legality of the searches or the warrants was not involved. State v. Krinski, 78 Vt. ——, 62 Atl. 37; State v. Barr, 78 Vt. ——, 62 Atl. 43.

The respondent excepted to the admission of the faucet, hose, and liquor, and the evidence relative to the drunken men; but this is all within the holding in the Krinski Case, and for the reasons there stated properly admitted. Commonwealth v. Gagne (Mass.) 26 N. E. 449, 10 L. R. A. 442. It was further objected that all evidence relative to the ale, liquor, faucet, and rubber hose was inadmissible because these things were all found on Hall's premises, and not on the respondent's, and that there was no evidence tending to connect the respondent with them; and on this question we are referred to the record. Turning to the record, we find the evidence said to be lacking. For the facts that the respondent rented the whole building and then sublet a part to Hall; that he and Hall recently moved to Hardwick together, went and looked over this building together before it was rented, and were constantly together on the streets and in the public places of the village; that the barrel of ale was placed so as to face the wall instead of the cellar room, with the faucet within easy reach of the hole in the wall behind the bar, with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • State v. Tonn
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1923
  • State v. Maes
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1923
  • State v. Tonn
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1923
  • State v. Owens
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1924
    ...such examination would not be deemed an unreasonable search" —a question not in the present case. A Vermont case is cited (State v. Suiter, 78 Vt. 391, 63 Atl. 182), in which the Constitution was not mentioned. Evidence discovered by illegal process was held admissible, but the illegality w......
  • 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