State v. Neagle

Decided May 4, 1876

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1876-05-04

On exceptions. Complaint, for search and seizure of intoxicating liquors, on appeal from the municipal court of Bath. On the trial.of the appeal, the government introduced the judge of the municipal court as a witness, who was allowed, against objection, for substance and form, to read his docket entry of a former conviction of respondent for a similar offense.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-05-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1970

1 district · 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 →

Walton, J.

¶1Upon the trial of one charged with having in his possession intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same in violation of law, the record of a previous conviction of a similar offense is admissible in evidence upon the question of intent. So decided in State v. Plunkett, 64 Maine, 534.

¶2And the docket entries may be read to the jury, when a more extended record has not been made. Leathers v. Cooley, 49 Maine, 337. Pierce v. Goodrich, 47 Maine, 173. Longley v. Vose, 27 Maine, 179. Read v. Sutton, 2 Cush., 115. Pruden v. Alden, 23 Pick., 184.

¶3Irregularity in the drawing of jurors is not a ground for setting aside a verdict, unless it appears that the party moving to have the verdict set aside was injured by the irregularity. R. S., c. 82, § 78. R. S., c. 134, § 20. No such injury appears in this case.

¶4Exceptions overruled.

¶5Judgment on the verdict.

Appleton, C. J., Dickerson, Barrows, Yirgin, Peters and Libbey, JJ., concurred.