Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-12-08
LAW COURT DECISIONS.

The following rescripts have been re-
ccived:
kennebec s.
State vs.. John Merrill. Rescript CNo
opinionD
| savage. J.-ThiS case is made of Il copy
| OF the indictment Gn the ordinary form
| Tor manSlaughteD, the bill of eXcep-
/ ton, (Which contains no statement of
| facts in evidence or of the claims or
| positions, either of the State or the
| reSpondenD, and the charge of presid-
| ing judge.
1t is the duty of the excepting party
| to state in his bill of exceptions enough
of the case, enough of the issues of
fact that were presented. enough of
the claims of the parties on one side
and the other. to enable the court ID
determine whether the errors com
planned of are material or irnmateriaI
whether they are vital or harmless, or
III other words whether they might
have affected the result Of the trial.
The excepting party must set forth
enough to show that the rulings OK
repted to We're both wrong ana prctu
dicial. Failing to do this, he takes no
benefit by his exceptions. The charge
of the presiding Judge, when made a
part Of the bin of exceptions cannot
be regarded as Il statement Of the facts
in the case, or of the positions of the
parties. 1t may be- extended i'm con-
nection with the bill Of exceptions, to
ascertain whether the alleged crron-
couS rulings. taken together with the
other instructions of the presiding
Judge, are. in view " the issues pre-
scented by the bill. wrong or prcjudiciaI
But considering The gravity of tn
charge against the respondent. and tn
serious consequences which may at
tend his conviction, We have examined
the entire charge of the prcsidfn.s
judge to see if tn" passages cxcc,tcd
to We're wrong. or could have been
harmful in any view Of tho ease 50 fan
as it is presented in the charge itself.
And if we assume that the charge as
given was relevant to the issues pre-
scented by the testimony. We think III.
exceptions taken by the respondent
ought not to be sustained.
Exceptions ovcrruled.
Cumberland. IS.
W. Edwin Ulmcr in "a. y. Falmouth
Loan and building Association. Re. |
script.
Savage. 1.-The yuult ~ NJ opinion |
-, 5;1,i,,., '-' va P'"P'l-
- therein are altogether too indefinite |
ana uncertain ~ apprise the defend !
ants az III" particular charges they AZ, I
called upon To answer.
The court is also of the opinion that. /
Indor the statute. The power Of invnk- 4
- ''-' ~ NV .'"''' "hoII
'''''' "''''.'i't '.'.,'' t'''''S 'N'e','
l''"'i n N III, '9''" /" 'io p"ilh
'''' ii 'l"' i"'H i'i"H .
~ .'ij Y" '.'" '"i RECEIVER
'''i ''''''' '7S''' VIA" '''N'S'
AEtro1'n2&in. IS.
Henry NJ. Cakes Nh. charles j. NJ.
M"rriHeld- KesCript
Savage. II The court sitting with
powers IF q Jury. mold that evidence
''l II "'irl k''ptf' lh thls state. rur-
ll'N'' ~" it'''Ntd ~ "h" tIlhe lh''Nl-
"'''G liquors '' III" amount "i H'"',
warrants IN" r"nCluSi N. IN me absence
NJ I'M explanation. that the liquors
.Nrrr intended To be sold by him. ana
he court has no doubt that such was
he fact in this case. Inasmuch as the
purchaser had no lawful authority to
ell. if h intended to Sell them in this
state ne intended to sell them unlaw-
ulIE-
- ~ purchaser gave pfolnls-
"rN note for a portion or the purchase
rice of such Intoxicating liquors.
Nhl'h note came INTO the possession of
thlrd party. Held, under the evi-
ltn,e tnat ms third party was not a