State v. Wasilenskis

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Wasilenskis

95 A. 415, 114 Me. 91, 1915 Me. LEXIS 18

DecidedOctober 9, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A. 415 (State v. Wasilenskis) 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. Wasilenskis, 95 A. 415, 114 Me. 91, 1915 Me. LEXIS 18 (Me. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Bird, J.

This case is before this court upon exceptions to the overruling of defendant’s demurrer to a complaint charging one by the name of J. Wasilenskis with the illegal possession of intoxicating liquors. It is conceded that the question intended to be raised by the demurrer is whether or not this description of the defendant is sufficient.

It does not appear from the complaint, demurrer and joinder, and these constitute the record, that defendant has any other or any [92]*92more of a name than J. Wasilenskis. Letters of the alphabet, consonants as well as vowels, may be names sufficient to distinguish different persons of the same surname: State v. Cameron, 86 Maine, 196, 197 and cases cited: State v. Libby, 103 Maine, 147, 150. See also Dutton v. Simmons, 65 Maine, 583, 585.

If the name of the defendant by which he was christened or generally called or known, be other than that by which he is designated in the indictment, it is a case of misnomer and should be pleaded in abatement. Mr. Heard’s statement of the law is “Whatever mistake may be made in his name, the defendant can take advantage of it by plea in abatement only.” Heard Cr. PL, 51. We think it may be adopted as correct, with two possible exceptions which, in this case, it is unnecessary either to consider or to state.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Bird, J.

This case is before this court upon exceptions to the overruling of defendant’s demurrer to a complaint charging one by the name of J. Wasilenskis with the illegal possession of intoxicating liquors. It is conceded that the question intended to be raised by the demurrer is whether or not this description of the defendant is sufficient.

It does not appear from the complaint, demurrer and joinder, and these constitute the record, that defendant has any other or any [92]*92more of a name than J. Wasilenskis. Letters of the alphabet, consonants as well as vowels, may be names sufficient to distinguish different persons of the same surname: State v. Cameron, 86 Maine, 196, 197 and cases cited: State v. Libby, 103 Maine, 147, 150. See also Dutton v. Simmons, 65 Maine, 583, 585.

If the name of the defendant by which he was christened or generally called or known, be other than that by which he is designated in the indictment, it is a case of misnomer and should be pleaded in abatement. Mr. Heard’s statement of the law is “Whatever mistake may be made in his name, the defendant can take advantage of it by plea in abatement only.” Heard Cr. PL, 51. We think it may be adopted as correct, with two possible exceptions which, in this case, it is unnecessary either to consider or to state.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A. 415, 114 Me. 91, 1915 Me. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wasilenskis-me-1915.