State v. Dorr

Decided November 20, 1889

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1889-11-20

On exceptions. The respondent filed a general demurrer to the indictment, which was joined by attorney for the state. The presiding justice overruled tbo demurrer and adjudged the indictment sufficient. To this ruling the respondent excepted.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1908

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-11-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Virgin, J.

¶1By R. S., c. 17, § 1, “all places used … for the illegal sale or keeping of intoxicating liquors … are common nuisances.” By § 2, “whoever keeps or maintains such nuisance shall he fined,” etc.

¶2The indictment alleges with proper time and venue that John Dorr, without any lawful authority “did keep and maintain a common nuisance, to wit: a certain building in said Frankfort then and there used during all said time by him, the said Dorr, for the illegal sale and illegal keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors to the common nuisance,” etc.

¶3We have no . doubt of the sufficiency of the indictment. No allegation of sale is necessary. State v. Lang, 63 Maine, 215, 219.

¶4Exceptions overruled.

¶5Judgment for the State.

Peters, O. J., Daneorth, Libbey, Emeey and Haskell, JJ., concurred.