Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-09-16

Androsco" in County.
State OF Mime VS.. Vital Ouellette.
Rescript. PEABODY, J.
This W." an Indictment against the
responf Il and ono Archie LeBla nc,
for r. 1taining a common nuisance as
detn 4 r. Section |. Chapter %. r. 6.
Tee prohibited acts specified in the
indictm. x wsr" the keeping and MAIN
tainin" a certain place used for the
Illegal 'oeriHe Of intoXicating liquors
and r',Crn Intoxicating liquors We're
sold 'rr tinplin" purposes. and which
was pace o. resort where intuxicat-
ing Hquo"e We're EntlWfullv kent. sold.
given awav. drank and Gisoepsed.
I.n"lanc ives nonlitted and the re-
spC n6tnt. OGelicttn. was found guilty
by the Jury. AT the trial the attorney
| for tie state introduced evidence prov
| ing that Ouelctte had paid a special
United states internal revenue tax as a
| retail liquor dealer. covering the time
specified in the Indictment.
The respondent claimed in his tnsti-
monN, as the reason why he took out
| the license, that he was compelled 20
do So by the internal revenues officer,
who said to him among other things,
MIR. Ouellette, this business that you
are connected with in the store, and
what you got on the shelf. you have
got to have a revenue tax end he
testified that ne had about Is or 20
kinds Of goods on his shelf which re-
quired him to take a license.
Two circulars We're Identified by
Ouelletta as papers received 3ron the
revenue officer, and were SUBSEQUENTLY
offered in evidence by his c0N8(sel but
We're excluded by the court. Mspection
shows them to be lists of.Aicoholic
medicinal preparations for the sale of
which the special tax OF liquor dealer
is required under rulings of the Com
missioner of Internal Revenue.
Payment of the tax was relied upon
, by the State under the provisions OF
Section 40, Chapter %. r. s.. as primti
facie evidence Of his guilt, and it was
his right to explain his action. and he
contends that what took place between
him and thu revenue officer shows q
reason for his paying the tax consistent
with innocence, and that the circulars
given him We're themselves part of the
acts of the officer and We're erroneous
ly excluded. They We're technically re-
levant and admissible. not in a strict
legal sense, as part of the res geStae
which made their admission in evidence
compulsory. but admissible on two
grounds. to complete the incidents of
the transaction. and as tending to fur
nish cumulative evidence Of the re-
spondents Knowledge that the sale of
certain medicines, not unlawful to sell,
required payment of the revenue tax
as bearing on the question of the in
tent of his action; but their exclusion
is not necessarily exccptionable; it de-
ponds upon whether the respondent
| was thereby nreiudiced
The respondent admits that he had
Is or 90 medicinal preparations for sale
to which the revenue officer called his
attention requiring him TO take IL
cense and it is impossible to perceive
how he could be preiudiced by the cN-
clusion of the contents of the circulars
1t does not aftirmatively appear that he
read them and consequently paid the
tax. but assuming that he had r"a!
them, they were merely names of medi-
cincs similar to those he had in stock.
and the circulars at most We're but
slightly evdential of his motive in pay
ing the tax. Their exclusion by the
Justice was discretionary.
Exceptions Ovcrruled.
Received September 14th, 1910.