State v. Tague

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Tague

56 A. 535, 76 Vt. 118, 1903 Vt. LEXIS 99

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedDecember 10, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 A. 535 (State v. Tague) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Tague, 56 A. 535, 76 Vt. 118, 1903 Vt. LEXIS 99 (Vt. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Stafford, J.

The question is whether the giving away of intoxicating liquor is forbidden by our present statute, Acts 1902, No. 90. Furnishing is forbidden, and to1 give away is to furnish. State v. Freeman, 27 Vt. 523. The argument is that the repealed statute did in terms forbid giving away, while the present does not. But it was evidently intended that furnishing should include giving away. For example, in the exception allowing private hospitality in one’s dwelling, the word is furnish (Sec. 21). The construction contended for would lead to such absurdities as that minors and habitual drunkards, although they could not be sold to nor otherwise furnished, might be given liquor, and that treating, though forbidden at the bar, could be practiced .on the sidewalk.

The respondent takes nothing by his exception.

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

Stafford, J.

The question is whether the giving away of intoxicating liquor is forbidden by our present statute, Acts 1902, No. 90. Furnishing is forbidden, and to1 give away is to furnish. State v. Freeman, 27 Vt. 523. The argument is that the repealed statute did in terms forbid giving away, while the present does not. But it was evidently intended that furnishing should include giving away. For example, in the exception allowing private hospitality in one’s dwelling, the word is furnish (Sec. 21). The construction contended for would lead to such absurdities as that minors and habitual drunkards, although they could not be sold to nor otherwise furnished, might be given liquor, and that treating, though forbidden at the bar, could be practiced .on the sidewalk.

The respondent takes nothing by his exception.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A. 535, 76 Vt. 118, 1903 Vt. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tague-vt-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack