Home/Supreme Judicial Court of Maine/State v. Shaw

State v. Shaw

31 Me. 523
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1850·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Tenney, J., orally,

The counsel for defendant contends, that the Judge ought to have defined the term, curtilage, to the jury. But there was no request of the kind. Without such request, he was not bound to do so.

Again, it is contended the barn was not within the curtilage. The curtilage of a dwellinghouse is a space, necessary and convenient and habitually used, for the family purposes, the carrying on of domestic employments. It includes the garden, if there be one. It need not be separated from other lands by fence. The ruling of the Judge was unobjectionable.

Exceptions overruled.

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

State v. Shaw, 31 Me. 523 (Me. 1850).

31 Me. 523 (State v. Shaw) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hamilton
660 So. 2d 1038 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
United States v. LaBerge
267 F. Supp. 686 (D. Maryland, 1967)
Phillips v. State
177 So. 2d 243 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Coons v. State
22 S.W.2d 459 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Williams v. State
18 S.W.2d 654 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Wolf v. State
9 S.W.2d 350 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Turknett v. State
1927 OK CR 113 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1927)
Craven v. State
111 So. 767 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1927)
Pettus v. Commonwealth
96 S.E. 161 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1918)
Bare v. Commonwealth
94 S.E. 168 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1917)
Wright v. State
77 S.E. 657 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
Hutchins v. State
59 S.E. 848 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Cook v. State
83 Ala. 62 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)
Ivey v. State
61 Ala. 58 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1878)