State v. Brunelle & Nisun

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Brunelle & Nisun

57 Vt. 580

DecidedJanuary 15, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Vt. 580 (State v. Brunelle & Nisun) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brunelle & Nisun, 57 Vt. 580 (Vt. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the- court was- delivered by

Taft, J.

An appeal from a justice of the peace, in a prosecution for- selling intoxicating liquor, based on sections 3814-16 and 3804 R. L-. In the County Court the- respondents moved to> dismiss the cause “for defects apparent upon the face of the complaint.” The motion being denied, the question comes to this court for revision. The exceptions do not show that any question was brought to the attention of the County Court upon the trial below; or that any question was considered and adjudged by that court. Neither the motion nor exceptions state the subject [583]*583upon which the court acted in denying the motion. The Supreme Court revises only the matters upon which the County Court has, or should have, acted; and will not presume that it has committed any error not clearly disclosed by the record, which is made up of the pleadings and exceptions. The respondents take nothing by their exceptions and cause remanded.

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

The opinion of the- court was- delivered by

Taft, J.

An appeal from a justice of the peace, in a prosecution for- selling intoxicating liquor, based on sections 3814-16 and 3804 R. L-. In the County Court the- respondents moved to> dismiss the cause “for defects apparent upon the face of the complaint.” The motion being denied, the question comes to this court for revision. The exceptions do not show that any question was brought to the attention of the County Court upon the trial below; or that any question was considered and adjudged by that court. Neither the motion nor exceptions state the subject [583]*583upon which the court acted in denying the motion. The Supreme Court revises only the matters upon which the County Court has, or should have, acted; and will not presume that it has committed any error not clearly disclosed by the record, which is made up of the pleadings and exceptions. The respondents take nothing by their exceptions and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Vt. 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brunelle-nisun-vt-1885.