State v. Wright
This text of 17 A. 998 (State v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant was complained of for keeping intoxicating liquors for sale in violation of law. The complaint begins thus: “ To James W. Blackwood, Esq., Justice of the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,” etc., but it appears by the jurat that it was subscribed and sworn to before William B. Beach, justice of the District Court of the sixth judicial district. It is a fact of which we think we can take judicial notice, that William B. Beach was at the date of the complaint justice of the District Court of the sixth judicial district. 1 Wharton on Evidence, § 324, note 4. The question raised by *519 the exception is, whether it is a fatal defect in the complaint that it was formally addressed to James W. Blackwood instead of William B. Beach. It seems to us that it sufficiently appears that the complaint was actually made to Beach and received by him, and therefore that the defect is not fatal. There was no James W. Blackwood, vyho was at the time justice of the District Court of the sixth judicial district, and the name may in our opinion be treated as surplusage.
The exceptions are overruled, and the case remitted to the Court of Common Pleas for sentence.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 A. 998, 16 R.I. 518, 1889 R.I. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wright-ri-1889.