State v. Brown

Decided July 1, 1850

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1850-07-01

<p>In a prosecution for selling intoxicating drinks, it is no defence that the liquor was sold and used, solely for medicinal purposes, if the defendant had no license.</p> <p>The exception, in the first section of the Act to restrict the sale of intoxicating drinks, is sufficiently negatived by an averment that the liquor was not imported into the United States from any foreign port or place.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1850-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1917

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Howard, J., orally.

¶1We consider the exceptions in the first section of the Act to be sufficiently negatived in the complaint. The provisions of the twenty-fourth section have no application. The name of Mrs. Brown might not have been known to the complainant. A conviction hero would bar another complaint for the same offence.

¶2The liquor was sold for a medical purpose. It might be indiscreet to prosecute, but the defendant had no right to sell, whether for medicine, or for drinking or for any other purpose.

¶3 Exceptions overruled.