State v. Wooley

• Decision Date: 05 July 1887
• Citation: 10 A. 84,59 Vt. 357
• Parties: STATE v. BENJ. H. WOOLEY
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

10 A. 84

59 Vt. 357

STATE v. BENJ. H. WOOLEY

Supreme Court of Vermont, Rutland County

July 5, 1887

INDICTMENT charging the respondent with the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor. Trial by jury, September Term, 1886 VEAZEY, J., presiding. Verdict, guilty of three second offenses; and the respondent was sentenced as provided by law. The respondent requested the court to direct the state's attorney to furnish him with a specification with the number and nature of the offenses of which he was charged; when and where committed; to whom the intoxicating liquor was sold, furnished, or given away.

The specification stated that the state's attorney would claim that the offenses had been committed since the respondent was appointed agent for the sale of liquors of the Town of Rutland, which was May 4th, 1886; that the witnesses "summoned are * * * [naming several persons], and there are various other witnesses unknown to the state's attorney at present;" and that the state's attorney did not know the number of offenses that he could prove, but placed the number at two hundred, the same being conjectured. The respondent objected to the specification, claiming that it did not conform to his request; but the court sustained it, on the representation of the prosecuting attorney that it was as full as he was able to make it.

The court charged:

"The agent has authority to sell for medicinal, chemical and mechanical purposes only.

"His duty is not only to keep liquor and sell it for these purposes, but he must be reasonably diligent and careful not to be imposed upon and let liquor go for other purposes; and if he does not exercise such care, and persons thereby get and use liquor for other purposes, the agent is liable as for an unlawful sale.

"He is not liable for lack of care in a sale, if the other party the purchaser, buys for a lawful purpose. He is liable if careless, as explained, when the liquor is bought and used for unlawful purposes."

Exceptions overruled, and judgment rendered.

C. H. Joyce and J. D. Spellman, for the respondent, cited State v. Freeman, 27 Vt. 523; State v. Rowe, 43 Vt. 265.

F. S. Platt, for the State, cited State v. Bacon, 41 Vt. 526; State v. Davis, 52 Vt. 376; State v. Fisher, 35 Vt. 584; State v. Parks, 29 Vt. 70.

OPINION

ROSS, J.

While from the general form of charging the offense, and to prevent possible injustice in the administration of the law, the respondent, in this class of prosecutions, is entitled to a specification of offenses,--State v Conlin, 27 Vt. 318; State v. Freeman, 27 Vt. 523,--the character of the specification, with reference to minuteness and extent of detail, is a matter of discretion of the trial court to be exercised with reference to the circumstances of the case. State v. Bacon, 41 Vt. 526; State v. Rowe, 43 Vt. 265; State v. Davis, 52 Vt. 376. This is too well settled, in this State, to require further elucidation. While conceding the general doctrine to be as stated, the respondent contends that there was error in allowing witnesses to testify who were not named in the specification. The state's attorney, after specifying the witnesses summoned, added, "And there are various other...