Case ID: liquor-tax-rep_3/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fourth Appellate Department,
    November, 1904.
    Reported 98 App. Div. 635.
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William B. Kingston, Appellant.
    
      Frank C. Ferguson, for appellant.
    . The defendant did not have a trial before an impartial jury; the court should have allowed the question to jurors “ Have you expressed an opinion about this class of cases at this term of court?” (People v. McGonegal, 136 N. Y. 62; Abbott v. The People, 86 N. Y. 460.)
    There was not sufficient evidence to justify submission to jury . to uphold the conviction; there was no evidence whatever that defendant knew that what bartenders gave to witnesses was lagei beer and not hop-soda, as they ordered. (Cullinan v. Burkard, 41 Misc. 321.)
    
      John Knight, for respondent.
    Objections to questions touching on the prejudice of jurors were properly sustained. (Fortune v. Trainor, 47 St. Rep. 58, affd. 141 N. Y. 605; Dupuy v. Quinn, 40 St. Rep. 837; Baiba v. People, 80 N. Y. 491; People v. Carpenter, 102 N. Y. 244.)
   The evidence was ample to sustain the conviction; the sales were made in defendant’s presence, and with his knowledge. (Verona Central Cheese Co. v. Murtaugh, 50 N. Y. 319; People v. Utter, 44 Barb. 170; Cullinan v. Burkard, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1006.)

Judgment of conviction and order affirmed.

All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to permit three of the jurors to answer certain questions bearing upon their competency to sit as jurors, and also in overruling defendant’s challenge upon the ground of actual bias to the juror Hale.