Case ID: me_39/html/0262-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      TeNííey, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

† State of Maine versus Spirituous Liquors and John S. Carter.
    Unless the warrant issued under § 11 of c. 48, of statutes of 1853, shows upon its face that the testimony required before its issue, was not only reduced to writing, hut signed and verified hy the oath of the witnesses, proceedings under it are invalid and void.
    On ExCeptions from Nisi Prius, Shepley, C. J., presiding.
    Complaint, under § 11, of c. 48, of Acts of 1853, to search defendant’s dwellinghouse. The warrant alleged, “it having first before the issuing this warrant been shown to me, the undersigned magistrate, by the testimony of witnesses upon oath, that there is reasonable ground for believing that spirituous and intoxicating liquors are so kept and deposited in said Carter’s dwellinghouse or its appurtenances, intended for unlawful sale, which testimony has been reduced to writing by me.”
    Liquors were found in the dwellinghouse, the respondent being convicted before the justice, appealed, and was convicted at the trial in the Supreme Judicial Court.
    After verdict, a motion in arrest of judgment was made for several causes, among which was the following: — that the complaint, warrant and record in the case does not show that the justice had jurisdiction.
    The motion was overruled and exceptions filed.
    Low,
    in support of the exceptions.
    
      Abbott, Att’y Gen., contra.
    
   TeNííey, J.

— It appears upon the face of the proceedings, in this case, that before the warrant was issued, by the magistrate, it was shown to him, by the testimony of witnesses upon oath, that there was reasonable ground for believing, that spirituous and intoxicating liquors were kept and deposited in said Carter’s dwellinghouse, or its appurtenances, intended for unlawful sale, which testimony had been reduced to writing by the magistrate.

In addition to the proof so certified in the warrant, it was necessary, that it should further appear upon the face of the proceedings, that the magistrate had caused the testimony of the witnesses given upon oath, and so reduced to writing, to be signed and verified by the oath or affirmation of such xoitnesses. This last requirement appears not to have been complied with before the warrant was issued; and for this reason the warrant was fatally defective; and the

Exceptions are sustained and judgment is arrested.