State v. Chemiesky

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Chemiesky

126 A. 17, 124 Me. 45, 1924 Me. LEXIS 76

DecidedSeptember 6, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A. 17 (State v. Chemiesky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Chemiesky, 126 A. 17, 124 Me. 45, 1924 Me. LEXIS 76 (Me. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Wilson, J.

A complaint under Sec. 17, Chap. 127, R. S., as amended by Chap. 62, Public Laws, 1921. The indictment alleges that the respondent had in his possession two half barrels containing mash fit for distillation and one still for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquors. Respondent after conviction and before judgment filed a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the complaint was bad for duplicity in that it alleges two distinot offenses, viz.: the having in possession mash fit for distillation, also a still for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquors. The case is before this court on respondent’s exceptions to the court’s ruling denying the motion.

The objection to the complaint on the ground of duplicity is not well taken. In principle this complaint is governed by State v. Burgess, 40 Maine, 592 and State v. Haskell, 76 Maine, 399; but if the complaint was bad on the grounds urged, the motion of the respondent after verdict comes too late. State v. Derry, 118 Maine, 431.

Exceptions overruled.

Judgment for State.

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

Wilson, J.

A complaint under Sec. 17, Chap. 127, R. S., as amended by Chap. 62, Public Laws, 1921. The indictment alleges that the respondent had in his possession two half barrels containing mash fit for distillation and one still for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquors. Respondent after conviction and before judgment filed a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the complaint was bad for duplicity in that it alleges two distinot offenses, viz.: the having in possession mash fit for distillation, also a still for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquors. The case is before this court on respondent’s exceptions to the court’s ruling denying the motion.

The objection to the complaint on the ground of duplicity is not well taken. In principle this complaint is governed by State v. Burgess, 40 Maine, 592 and State v. Haskell, 76 Maine, 399; but if the complaint was bad on the grounds urged, the motion of the respondent after verdict comes too late. State v. Derry, 118 Maine, 431.

Exceptions overruled.

Judgment for State.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A. 17, 124 Me. 45, 1924 Me. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chemiesky-me-1924.