State v. Burke

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Burke

4 A. 761, 15 R.I. 324, 1886 R.I. LEXIS 27

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 25, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 A. 761 (State v. Burke) 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

State v. Burke, 4 A. 761, 15 R.I. 324, 1886 R.I. LEXIS 27 (R.I. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant is *325 charged with maintaining a common nuisance. To support the charge, evidence was introduced of sales of liquor by the defendant’s son on Sunday. The court instructed the jury as follows: The presumption of law is, that his son, being in his place of business, acting for him on week days, is his agent, and he would be liable for his acts. This implies that the defendant is liable for the acts on Sunday of an agent employed by him on week days, without proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant of the unlawful acts on Sunday, and without proof of authority, either express or to be inferred from the testimony in the case, that the agent might act for him on Sunday. We think that this was error. Exceptions sustained.

Samuel P. 'Colt, Attorney-General, for plaintiff. Charles P. Gorman Sp William P. Sheffield, Pun., for defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant is *325 charged with maintaining a common nuisance. To support the charge, evidence was introduced of sales of liquor by the defendant’s son on Sunday. The court instructed the jury as follows: The presumption of law is, that his son, being in his place of business, acting for him on week days, is his agent, and he would be liable for his acts. This implies that the defendant is liable for the acts on Sunday of an agent employed by him on week days, without proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant of the unlawful acts on Sunday, and without proof of authority, either express or to be inferred from the testimony in the case, that the agent might act for him on Sunday. We think that this was error. Exceptions sustained.

Samuel P. 'Colt, Attorney-General, for plaintiff. Charles P. Gorman Sp William P. Sheffield, Pun., for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A. 761, 15 R.I. 324, 1886 R.I. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-burke-ri-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack