In Re Stone

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

In Re Stone

41 A. 658, 21 R.I. 14, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 13

DecidedOctober 1, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A. 658 (In Re Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Stone, 41 A. 658, 21 R.I. 14, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 13 (R.I. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) The petitioner was found guilty as charged in the indictment. The presumption is that the proof showed that the petitioner had in his possession eighteen birds, as charged, since if he had had a lesser number it was competent for the jury to have found him guilty to that extent, and not guilty as to the residue. So far as appears, the petitioner did not ask for a special finding by the jury, as he might have done if there had been any controversy as to the number. 1 Bish. Or. Pr. §§ 833-835; Whar. Or. PI. & Pr. § 742.

(2)

The fine of twenty dollars for each bird is not so clearly excessive that we can declare it to be a violation of Const. R. I. Art. 1, § 8. Cooley Const. Lim. 6 ed. 401, 402, and cases cited.

*15 Franklin P: Owen, for petitioner. Willard B. Tanner, Attorney-General, for the State.

An order may be entered remanding the petitioner to the custody of the officer.

*20 Thomas P. Barnefield, Walter F. Angelí, Stephen 0. Edwards, Seeber Edwards, and Albert Gerald, for complainants. James L. Jenks, Arnold Green, and Harmon S. Babcock,. for respondents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

(1) The petitioner was found guilty as charged in the indictment. The presumption is that the proof showed that the petitioner had in his possession eighteen birds, as charged, since if he had had a lesser number it was competent for the jury to have found him guilty to that extent, and not guilty as to the residue. So far as appears, the petitioner did not ask for a special finding by the jury, as he might have done if there had been any controversy as to the number. 1 Bish. Or. Pr. §§ 833-835; Whar. Or. PI. & Pr. § 742.

(2)

The fine of twenty dollars for each bird is not so clearly excessive that we can declare it to be a violation of Const. R. I. Art. 1, § 8. Cooley Const. Lim. 6 ed. 401, 402, and cases cited.

*15 Franklin P: Owen, for petitioner. Willard B. Tanner, Attorney-General, for the State.

An order may be entered remanding the petitioner to the custody of the officer.

*20 Thomas P. Barnefield, Walter F. Angelí, Stephen 0. Edwards, Seeber Edwards, and Albert Gerald, for complainants. James L. Jenks, Arnold Green, and Harmon S. Babcock,. for respondents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A. 658, 21 R.I. 14, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stone-ri-1898.