State v. Webster

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Webster

67 A. 1098, 80 Vt. 391, 1907 Vt. LEXIS 116

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedNovember 18, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 67 A. 1098 (State v. Webster) 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. Webster, 67 A. 1098, 80 Vt. 391, 1907 Vt. LEXIS 116 (Vt. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Watson, J.

The respondent is charged with selling intoxicating liquor without authority. Specifications and amended specifications were filed in the case. A hearing was had on respondent’s motion for better and more complete specifications. The State’s Attorney stated to the Court that those filed were the best he was able to give. Whereupon the motion [392]*392was overruled and the specifications were held sufficient,' to which respondent excepted. The exceptions state that it was agreed that the question should be raised not only as to the definiteness of the indictment and specifications, but as though evidence had been offered and received under respondent’s exceptions tending to show sales of intoxicating liquor by him unauthorized by law. The cause was passed to this Court before final judgment under the statute.

The question of the sufficiency of the specifications was within the discretionary power of the court ánd not revisable. State v. Davis, 52 Vt. 376.

The fictitious or suppositional question of the admissibility of evidence will not be noticed.

Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

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

Watson, J.

The respondent is charged with selling intoxicating liquor without authority. Specifications and amended specifications were filed in the case. A hearing was had on respondent’s motion for better and more complete specifications. The State’s Attorney stated to the Court that those filed were the best he was able to give. Whereupon the motion [392]*392was overruled and the specifications were held sufficient,' to which respondent excepted. The exceptions state that it was agreed that the question should be raised not only as to the definiteness of the indictment and specifications, but as though evidence had been offered and received under respondent’s exceptions tending to show sales of intoxicating liquor by him unauthorized by law. The cause was passed to this Court before final judgment under the statute.

The question of the sufficiency of the specifications was within the discretionary power of the court ánd not revisable. State v. Davis, 52 Vt. 376.

The fictitious or suppositional question of the admissibility of evidence will not be noticed.

Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A. 1098, 80 Vt. 391, 1907 Vt. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-webster-vt-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack