State v. Van Winkle

New York Court of General Session of the Peace

State v. Van Winkle

88 A. 807, 27 Del. 405, 4 Boyce 405, 1913 Del. LEXIS 54

CourtNew York Court of General Session of the Peace

DecidedNovember 12, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A. 807 (State v. Van Winkle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Van Winkle, 88 A. 807, 27 Del. 405, 4 Boyce 405, 1913 Del. LEXIS 54 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pennewill, C. J.,

charging the jury:

Gentlemen of the jury:—The court decline to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. The court think this case is controlled by State v. Grier, 88 Atl. 579, recently decided in Sussex County, inasmuch as all the questions raised in the present case were raised and determined in the Grier case.

[1,2] For the reasons given in the opinion delivered in the Grier case, which are applicable to the questions now raised, we hold that the statute of this state, known as the “Hazel Law”, is constitutional, and the federal act, known as the “Webb-Kenyon Law”, is also constitutional, and applicable to the present case, if the facts raise the same questions of law as to its applicability, as would be raised if the indictment were against the express company of which the defendant was agent, which is the contention made by the defendant.

The court are therefore of the opinion, upon the agreed statement of facts, that under the laws of the State of Delaware, and [413]*413of the United States of America, a crime punishable under the laws of the State of Delaware is stated or shown to have been committed by the defendant. Being of such opinion, the jury is charged and directed to return a verdict of guilty against the defendant; and it is ordered that judgment be entered against the defendant upon such verdict, in conformity with the terms and stipulations of the case stated.

Verdict, guilty.

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

Pennewill, C. J.,

charging the jury:

Gentlemen of the jury:—The court decline to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. The court think this case is controlled by State v. Grier, 88 Atl. 579, recently decided in Sussex County, inasmuch as all the questions raised in the present case were raised and determined in the Grier case.

[1,2] For the reasons given in the opinion delivered in the Grier case, which are applicable to the questions now raised, we hold that the statute of this state, known as the “Hazel Law”, is constitutional, and the federal act, known as the “Webb-Kenyon Law”, is also constitutional, and applicable to the present case, if the facts raise the same questions of law as to its applicability, as would be raised if the indictment were against the express company of which the defendant was agent, which is the contention made by the defendant.

The court are therefore of the opinion, upon the agreed statement of facts, that under the laws of the State of Delaware, and [413]*413of the United States of America, a crime punishable under the laws of the State of Delaware is stated or shown to have been committed by the defendant. Being of such opinion, the jury is charged and directed to return a verdict of guilty against the defendant; and it is ordered that judgment be entered against the defendant upon such verdict, in conformity with the terms and stipulations of the case stated.

Verdict, guilty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A. 807, 27 Del. 405, 4 Boyce 405, 1913 Del. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-van-winkle-nygensess-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack