State v. Davis

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Davis

37 A.2d 762, 140 Me. 321, 1944 Me. LEXIS 18

DecidedJune 2, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.2d 762 (State v. Davis) 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. Davis, 37 A.2d 762, 140 Me. 321, 1944 Me. LEXIS 18 (Me. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This criminal prosecution, originating in the municipal court of Ellsworth, on appeal to the Superior Court is reported for final determination upon an agreed statement of facts. Although the offense charged is the unlawful digging of clams for commercial purposes in the town of Trenton in violation of Rule and Regulation 42 of the Commissioner of Sea and Shore Fisheries and contrary to the form of the statute in such cases [322]*322made and provided it is agreed that the complaint is for a violation of Chapter 130, Public Laws 1929, a general statute.

The rejection of the recital of Rule and Regulation 42 in the complaint as surplusage is authorized. Rawlings v. State, 2 Md., 201; Mayer v. State, 64 N. J. L., 323,45 A., 624; 1 Chitty’s Crim. Law, 276; 31 C. J., 703. But the statute, Chapter 130, P. L. 1929, relied upon, was repealed by Sec. Ill, Chap. 2, P. L. 1933 and does not exist. As a result the question presented is abstract and does not require determination.

Report discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This criminal prosecution, originating in the municipal court of Ellsworth, on appeal to the Superior Court is reported for final determination upon an agreed statement of facts. Although the offense charged is the unlawful digging of clams for commercial purposes in the town of Trenton in violation of Rule and Regulation 42 of the Commissioner of Sea and Shore Fisheries and contrary to the form of the statute in such cases [322]*322made and provided it is agreed that the complaint is for a violation of Chapter 130, Public Laws 1929, a general statute.

The rejection of the recital of Rule and Regulation 42 in the complaint as surplusage is authorized. Rawlings v. State, 2 Md., 201; Mayer v. State, 64 N. J. L., 323,45 A., 624; 1 Chitty’s Crim. Law, 276; 31 C. J., 703. But the statute, Chapter 130, P. L. 1929, relied upon, was repealed by Sec. Ill, Chap. 2, P. L. 1933 and does not exist. As a result the question presented is abstract and does not require determination.

Report discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.2d 762, 140 Me. 321, 1944 Me. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-me-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack