State v. Danforth

Decided January 15, 1890

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1890-01-15

This was an information charging the respondent with fn rnishing intoxicating liquor. Trial by jury, at the September Term,. 1889, Rowers, J., presiding. Terdict, guilty. The evidence on the part of the prosecution tended to show that the respondent “treated one Cain. The liquor was furnished without compensation to and was drunk by Cain in a room in the village of Rutland, back of what had formerly been a store, but which was then empty.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1911

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Freeman · State v. Norton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *190The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tyler, J.

¶2The act of furnishing intoxicating liquor by the respondent, which the State’s evidence tended to prove, was in violation of the statute, R. L. s. 3800, unless done in a private dwelling or its dependency. It was incumbent upon the respondent to show affirmatively that the act fell within this .exception to the general prohibition of the law. State v. Freeman, 27 Vt. 523; State v. Norton, 45 Vt. 258.

¶3We find no error, therefore there must be judgment and sentence on the verdict.