Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1888-01-26
"a Wise aud Useful Enactment.

In the case II State ". one barrel of
brandy {. II. Guppy, claimant, which was
tried in the Superior Court OF Cumberland
county, the presiding judge on the trial
instructed the jury, A. matter OF law,
that the fact OF payment of a | nltet States
hQuor tax. unless explained, WAS cpuclu
slye evidence that the person paving It
was common seller OF intoxicating IL
quor> To this instruction, the defend
ant excepted, aud the case went 10 the 50
preme Court An opinion ha- just hc'.n
sent down. II wa, drawn by Ia lie Wi
ton. and i concurrcd In ny Judges Peter.
Virgin Libby. Foster ami Haskell. The
opinion j. in perfect accord with the IN
tent OF tho trainers ot the law AM W!th
the recent ruling, Of Judge Whilchan>,,
Of the superior Court Of henuchrc an
~ abou; which - much hs~ is'en Sail
The fnllo~.n. j. The full text Of the dc
c,>t,u .-
Onc OF the provision, OF the - ~ is>t.
chapter 40 amcndaiorY If the hqaHr law
declares that payment Of the nitcd STATE
special tax liquor seller shall 1e he'd
20 DC y,rim1 hIrie evidence thai the one
paving the lax i = common Sc.!rr - inioN-
icatins liquors. What i the lu' ming ~
this prpyi>Ipu2 Doe. il impose upon i',r
court the iGty II iustruc: in- the jury
will make it their dutt 10 tin,i the defon +
ant guilty, whether they believe han - ''c
a. or not, Il +, 3 sufficient answer t. ~
that jury can not be 80 instructed In any
criminal case The night Of trial ~ Jary
j. guaranteed by the constitution. ani IL =
not within the province Of the legislature
t. enact 4 law which VIII destroy or ma
terially impair thu ri-!lt.
The very essence Of trial by jur, !,
the right of each juror - weigh Tie cNt-
dcncr for himself and TO tAg exercise #
his own reasoning faculties. determine
whether or not the facts ins"iVed IN the
issue are proved. And II This right j. TAX
en- AWAY from the Jaror--sf he J. not al
lowed 20 weigh the evidence for himself
j. NOS allowed - Use h. own r,lsoH5n:
f8cultla-s Bat. on the contrary j. Obliged
- acce..t, me evidence Al the weight which
'''s - G affixed Ia tt And Ia return aud
A'ltil vt--s4Es seEy essence OF '.triai ny
Substance te taken away. and It. form only
iury- viii 10 And If the enactment under
can~i,t ION must be construed a. having
This entsE then very clearly, i d, unopn-
stltutional and void
Bot ~, DO nol thtuk il j. necessary :"
% couslruc it, We have many similar
statutes. In some ~ which the Hori,
used are 'grin.I ff-iS evidence" ami n 9TH
-r- the wor't> are ''Ir,sayRIttrs evidence
We cannot doubt that these phrases aro
intended to convey the same idea IhJ~,
the possession of q bird n certain seasons
" the year and the possession Of mutt
lated uncooked lobster are declared 10 be
prin.l ftrie evidence. that the former WAS
unlawfully killed and that the latter Wa
less than ten and half inches long when
taken; while the possession Of salmon
less than nine inches In length, or of
trout less than five inches In length, Is de
clared 70 he prcsHmytire evidence that they
we've unlawfully taken. Similar provisions
exist with respect 10 the possession Of the
carcasses OF moose or deer al those sea
sons OF the year when IL IS unlawful to
hunt or Kill them.
Can ii be doubted that these provisions
all mean the same thing? We think not.
Aud We are not aware that either of them
has ever been construed as making II OBJ
lisatory upon the jury 10 find defendant
guilty. whether they believe him 70 be 50
or not. They mean that such evidence is
competent and sufficient To Justify a jury
in finding u defendant guilty. provided it
does IN fact satisfy him OF his guilt be
yond a reasonable doubt. and not other /
wise. Ii would not be just 10 the lesisla-
ture to suppose that, by any of these en- +
actments they intended TO make il obli.a- f.
tory upon the jury to find d defendant
guilty, whether they believe him TO be 50 /
or not.
1t i well settled rule Of construction
that, If u statute is susceptible of two in /
corporations. and one Of the interpreta-
tons will render the statute uncon>titu- I
tional and the other will not. the latter
should be adopted. If il be thought that
these statutes, and especially the one now
under consideration, If construed a above
indicated. add nothing 10 the weight Of
such evidence, it will be we'll TO remember /
that declaratOry statutes are not uncom- /
mon. and are not always useless. They
often serve TO remove doubts and TO give I
certainty and stability To a rule Of law, 1
which it did not before possess; and that, |
in these particulars, the act under consid- !
Grafton NAV be regarded as a wise and use
full enactment.
The ruling of the Justice of the Supe-
rior Court not being in harmony with this
Interpretation of the statute, the excep-
tons must be sustained and q new trial
granted. But the motion is not properly
before us Motions for new trials in Grim
inal cases, tried in either OF the Superior
Courts are to be heard and finally deter
mined by the justices thereof. r. 5.
chap. II, sec. 50. And although this is a
proceeding against the liquor only, still it
must be regarded as a criminal case. State
VS.. Robinson, - Maine, 2s5. Exceptions
sustained and new trial granted.