Case ID: ri_21/html/0014-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Petition of Allen Stone.
    PROVIDENCE
    OCTOBER 1, 1898.
    Present : Matteson, O. L, Stiness and Tilliugbast, JJ.
    (1) Presumption. Special Finding by Jury.
    
    In the trial of an indictment charging the unlawful possession of a given number of partridges, the defendant may have, upon request, a special finding of the jury if there be any controversy as to the number of the birds.
    (2) Fxcessive Fines.
    
    Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 112, § 4, does not impose' a penalty in conflict with the constitutional provisions against excessive fines and cruel punishments.
    Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (See 20 R. I. 559, for previous opiniou in this matter.)
   Per Curiam.

The petitioner was found guilty as charged in the indictment. The presumption is that the proof showed that the petitioner had in his possession eighteen birds, as charged, since if he had had a lesser number it was competent for the jury to have found him guilty to that extent, and not guilty as to the residue. So far as appears, the petitioner did not ask for a special finding by the jury, as he might have done if there had been any controversy as to the number. 1 Bish. Or. Pr. §§ 833-835; Whar. Or. PI. & Pr. § 742.

The fine of twenty dollars for each bird is not so clearly excessive that we can declare it to be a violation of Const. R. I. Art. 1, § 8. Cooley Const. Lim. 6 ed. 401, 402, and cases cited.

Franklin P: Owen, for petitioner.

Willard B. Tanner, Attorney-General, for the State.

An order may be entered remanding the petitioner to the custody of the officer.

Thomas P. Barnefield, Walter F. Angelí, Stephen 0. Edwards, Seeber Edwards, and Albert Gerald, for complainants.

James L. Jenks, Arnold Green, and Harmon S. Babcock,. for respondents.