State v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 13 December 1906 |
| Citation | 102 Me. 229,66 A. 476 |
| Parties | STATE v. WALLACE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Argued Statement from Supreme Judicial Court, Knox County.
Action by the state against Ulysses T. Wallace. Complaint dismissed.
Complaint for taking clams within the limits of the town of Cushing, Knox county, contrary to the regulations of the municipal officers of Cushing assuming to act under Pub. Laws 1905, p. 175, c. 161. The matter came on for hearing at the January term, 1906, of the Supreme Judicial Court, Knox county, at which time an agreed statement of facts was filed and the case was sent to the law court, for that court to render such judgment as the law and evidence required. The case does not show how the matter reached the Supreme Judicial Court, but probably on appeal from the court or magistrate issuing the warrant.
The case appears in the opinion.
Argued before WHITEHOUSE, SAVAGE, POWERS, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.
Philip Howard, Co. Atty., for the State. Rodney I. Thompson, for defendant.
This was a complaint for taking clams within the limits of the town of Cushing, contrary to the regulations of the municipal officers assuming to act under Pub. Laws 1905, p. 175, c. 161. The case comes before this court on an agreed statement of facts.
The act of the Legislature is as follows:
This act was approved on the 24th day of March, 1905, and took effect on approval. The annual town meeting was held March 13, 1905. On April 15, 1905, the municipal officers of Cushing voted to issue not to exceed 150 licenses to residents of the town of Cushing, and also voted not to issue licenses to nonresidents of the town. The defendant was a resident of the town of Friendship. The complaint alleged that the defendant took clams within the limits of the town of Cushing on the 26th day of October, 1905, and it was further alleged and admitted that the clams were not dug for the consumption of defendant and family, or for the consumption of inhabitants of Cushing, or any person temporarily resident therein.
The two contentions of the defendant are, first, that the action of the municipal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Leavitt
...of the town" is still shown, except when the town fails to take action, in which case there is free fishing for every one. State v. Wallace, 102 Me. 229, GO Atl. Up to this point we have discussed the power of the state without reference to the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constituti......
-
Davis v. State
...or implication, nor can the effect of a penal statute be extended beyond the plain meaning of the language used. State v. Wallace, 1906, 102 Me. 229, 66 A. 476; State v. LeBlanc, 1916, 115 Me. 142, 98 A. 119; Tuttle Petr. v. State, 1962, 158 Me. 150, 180 A.2d 608. Nevertheless, the overridi......
-
Lipman v. Thomas.
...596 at page 598; Wing v. Weeks, 88 Me. 115 at page 118, 33 A. 779; State v. Bunker, 98 Me. 387, at page 389, 57 A. 95; State v. Wallace, 102 Me. 229 at page 232, 66 A. 476; State v. Peacock, 138 Me. 339, 25 A.2d 491. The statute being in derogation of the common law is not extended by impli......
-
State v. Norton
...penalties for persons convicted of violation of ordinances enacted under it, it must receive a strict construction. State v. Wallace, 102 Me. 229, 66 A. 476 (1906). In Alley we examined the identical statute but the attack was confined to its constitutionality and that of the ordinance and ......