Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 Me. 456

State v. Brown

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided December 18, 1883

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1883-12-18

<p> Griminal practice. JExceptio ns. </p> <p>Exceptions to the ruling of tlie court at nisi prius in overruling a motion Of the respondent to he discharged from custody, after the jury had disagreed and heen discharged of the case, must lie in the court of the county until final action there.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1998

2 state decisions

Relies on Lamphear v. Lamprey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-12-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Peters, C. J.

¶1We think these exceptions are not properly before us, and must be dismissed from this jurisdiction. Exceptions should not be sent to the law court until the case is fully disposed of in the trial court. If we entertain a hearing upon the respondent’s motion before a determination of the cause at nisi prius, unnecessary delay may be occasioned. If the case be sent to us once in this way, there is no reason why it could not come up in the same way over and again upon motions possible to be made. In such event there might be a total failure of justice. It is not this case alone that wre have in view but the principle of the thing. The exceptions must lie in the court for the county until final action there. This view is in accord with all the authorities. There are many analogous cases. Lamphear v. Lamprey, 4 Mass. 107; Daggett v. Chase, 29 Maine 356; Abbott v. Knowlton, 31 Maine, 77. The question presented is preliminary or collateral and not final. It is fully covered by the case of Cameron v. Tyler, 71 Maine, 27.

¶2 Fxceptions dismissed from this court.

Barrows, Danforth, Yirgin, Libbey and Symonds, JJ., concurred.
/75/me/456 · .json · Public domain