State v. Cruickshank

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Cruickshank

42 A. 983, 71 Vt. 94, 1899 Vt. LEXIS 141

Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided January 26, 1899·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Rowell, J.

This complaint lacks substance. It alleges that the respondent did ride a bicycle along and upon the sidewalk on a certain street in the city of Barre, “in violation of sections twenty-five and thirty-six of chapter thirteen of the ordinances of said city,” contra formam stattih. It should have set out the ordinances, as the court cannot take judicial notice of them. State v. Soragan, 40 Vt. 450.

It properly concluded against the form of the statute. State v. Soragan. Perhaps it should also have concluded against the form of the ordinances.

Judgment reversed, demurrer sustained, complaint adjudged insufficient, and cause remanded.

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

Rowell, J.

This complaint lacks substance. It alleges that the respondent did ride a bicycle along and upon the sidewalk on a certain street in the city of Barre, “in violation of sections twenty-five and thirty-six of chapter thirteen of the ordinances of said city,” contra formam stattih. It should have set out the ordinances, as the court cannot take judicial notice of them. State v. Soragan, 40 Vt. 450.

It properly concluded against the form of the statute. State v. Soragan. Perhaps it should also have concluded against the form of the ordinances.

Judgment reversed, demurrer sustained, complaint adjudged insufficient, and cause remanded.

State v. Cruickshank, 42 A. 983, 71 Vt. 94, 1899 Vt. LEXIS 141 (Vt. 1899).

Pincite

42 A. 983 (State v. Cruickshank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related