State v. Buckman

New York Court of General Session of the Peace

State v. Buckman

83 A. 938, 25 Del. 591, 2 Boyce 591, 1911 Del. LEXIS 92

CourtNew York Court of General Session of the Peace

DecidedOctober 16, 1911

DocketNo. 80

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A. 938 (State v. Buckman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Buckman, 83 A. 938, 25 Del. 591, 2 Boyce 591, 1911 Del. LEXIS 92 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Rice, J.

charged the jury as follows:

Gentlemen of the jury: — Andrew J. Buckman has been indicted, charged with the sale of spirituous liquor, to wit, whiskey, to one John R. Reed, in Seaford, this county, on the twenty-fourth day of September, A. D. 1911, said whiskey not being then and there sold for medicinal or sacramental purposes.

The defense not introducing any testimony, the state has requested us to give you binding instructions to find a verdict of guilty.

It seems to the court that it was not intended that this law should be evaded by permitting a person who was not authorized to sell medicine, to sell vinous, malt or spirituous liquor as a medicine; in other words, to protect himself from indictment, a person must be authorized or qualified to sell medicine before he can lawfully sell vinous, malt or spirituous liquor as a medicine; therefore, while the court is always reluctant to do so, yet we think this is a proper case in which we should give instructions to you to find a verdict of guilty, if you believe the testimony of the state’s witness.

Verdict, guilty.

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

Rice, J.

charged the jury as follows:

Gentlemen of the jury: — Andrew J. Buckman has been indicted, charged with the sale of spirituous liquor, to wit, whiskey, to one John R. Reed, in Seaford, this county, on the twenty-fourth day of September, A. D. 1911, said whiskey not being then and there sold for medicinal or sacramental purposes.

The defense not introducing any testimony, the state has requested us to give you binding instructions to find a verdict of guilty.

It seems to the court that it was not intended that this law should be evaded by permitting a person who was not authorized to sell medicine, to sell vinous, malt or spirituous liquor as a medicine; in other words, to protect himself from indictment, a person must be authorized or qualified to sell medicine before he can lawfully sell vinous, malt or spirituous liquor as a medicine; therefore, while the court is always reluctant to do so, yet we think this is a proper case in which we should give instructions to you to find a verdict of guilty, if you believe the testimony of the state’s witness.

Verdict, guilty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A. 938, 25 Del. 591, 2 Boyce 591, 1911 Del. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-buckman-nygensess-1911.