State v. Whitten

Decision Date01 February 1897
Citation90 Me. 53,37 A. 331
PartiesSTATE v. WHITTEN.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

(Official.)

Exceptions from superior court, Kennebec county.

Charles Whitten was convicted of violating the fish and game law. He demurred to the complaint in the superior court, and excepts. Demurrer overruled.

Geo. W. Heselton, Co. Atty., for the State.

Edmund F. and Appleton Webb, for defendant.

PETERS, C. J. The complaint against the respondent runs as follows: "C. B. Bunker, of Belgrade, in the county of Kennebec, state of Maine.

"On the twentieth day of May, A. D. 1895, in behalf of said state, on oath complains that Charlie Whitten, of Belgrade, in said county, on the 20th day of May, A. D. 1895, at said Belgrade was guilty of catching, killing, netting, and having in his possession for the purpose of transportation, and did send the same marked to 'C. V. Whitten, 6 Winthrop Sqr., Boston, Mass.,' one trout, of the weight of four and one-half, not being in the possession of the said Charlie Whitten, against the peace of said state, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided."

Upon his arraignment the respondent pleaded that he was guilty of "shipping" the trout as alleged, was found guilty, and fined in the sum of $72.50 for the offense. From this sentence he appealed. In the court above, without withdrawing his plea of guilty, and without leave of court, he demurred to the complaint, these steps constituting rather an irregular proceeding, but possibly permissible, inasmuch as the demurrer was duly joined by the prosecuting officer.

The complaint alleges a violation of Rev. St. c. 40, § 54, as amended by chapter 31 of the Laws of 1895, which is as follows: "No person shall take, catch, kill or have in possession, at any one time, for the purpose of transportation, more than twenty-five pounds of land-locked salmon or trout, in all, nor shall any such be transported except in the possession of the owner thereof, under a penalty of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Vermette
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 16 Octubre 1931
    ...be struck out of the indictment without injury to the charge, it may be treated as surplusage. State v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218; State v. Whitten, 90 Me. 53, 37 A. 331; State v. Whitehouse, 95 Me. 179, 49 A. 869; Com. v. Randall, 4 Gray (Mass.) 36; Com. v. Wright, 166 Mass. 174, 44 N. E. 129; ......
  • State v. Schumacher
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 5 Noviembre 1953
    ...that he, the justice presiding, impliedly gave his consent to the respondent to withdraw the former plea of not guilty. In State v. Whitten, 90 Me. 53, 37 A. 331, the court heard a demurrer which was filed in the court above without withdrawal of the plea in the court below and overruled th......
  • Union Water-Power Co. v. City of Auburn
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 2 Marzo 1897
    ... ... was a petition of the Union Water-Power Company of Lewiston, filed in this court sitting below, praying for an abatement of city, county, and state taxes assessed by the assessors of the city of Auburn upon a portion of its real estate and property rights in that city. The proceeding in this case ... ...
  • Bacon v. Casco Bay Steamboat Co.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 1897
    ... ... The latter rule is the doctrine of this state, at least as settled in the late case of Lasky v. Railway Co., 83 Me. 461, 22 Atl. 367. See authorities there cited ...         Furthermore, ... ...

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