The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-11-28
Decisions Of the Supreme Court

L ~
| In the supreme court, state of NORTH
Dakota, October term, 1910. State Of
North Dakota, plaintiff and respond
ent VS.. Floyd Miller, defendant and
appellant.
/. On a prosecution for the crime
of importing into this state intoxicat-
Ing liquors for sale or gift as bey-
erage, proof that the defendant did
prior TO the time set out i'm the in
formation but within one or two
prior thereto, sell intoxicating liquors
is admissible only as bearing on the
intent with which the act for which
the accused is informed against was
done.
2. The charge as a whole states
the law correctly. Hence, NO error
was committed in refusing defendants
requests for instructions. (Syllabus by
the court)
Appeal from county court, Ransom
county, Hon. F. S. Thomas Judge.
Action by state OF North Dakota
against Floyd Miller. From a judg-
meat in favor of plaintiff, defendant
appeals. Affirmed.
Chas.. S. Ego for appellant.
I. A. Curtis, states attorney, and
Andrew Miller, attorney general, for
respondent.
Opinion Of the court by carmody, !.
all concurring.
In the supreme court, state of North
Dakota, October term. 1910. State Of
North Dakota, plaintiff and respond
ent, VS.. George Robidou, defendant and
appellant
An order refusing new trial sought
for alleged misconduct Of juror, will
not generally be disturbed, unless the
trial court appears to have abused its
discretion. (Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from district court, Bur
leigh county; Winchester judge.
Action by the state of North Dakota
against George Robidou. From an or
der denying defendants motion for
new trial defendant appeals.
Affirmed
F. Fl. Register for appellant.
Anderw Miller. attorney general and
Alfred Zuger and G. L. Young, assis-
tant attorneys general
Opinion of the court by Carmody, T.,
all concurring.
In the supreme court. state of North
Dakota, October term, 1910. The
state of North Dakota, plaintiff and
respondent, VS.. c. II. Albertson. de-
PENDANT and appellant
/. The questions raised by the as
signments of error relating to the de-
NAL of the defendants demand for a
bill of particulars and to allowing the
attorney general to ask questions
which the defendant claims assumed
acts unproven and questions which
were leading are identical with the
same questions passed upon by this
court in the case of state VS.. Empt-
ing, decided at this term, and what is
said by the chief justice in that case
disposes of these questions.
?. Section 9794, rev. codes 1905. re-
quires that the names of ali witnesses
for the prosecution, known to the
states attorney to be such at the time
of filing the information, shall be in
doFsed or otherwise exhibited thereon,
but provides that other witnesses may
testify in behalf of the prosecution on
the trial of said action, the same as
IL their names had been Endorsed an
the information. 1t is not error for
the trial court to allow the examina-
ton OF such witnesses.
5. The information covers the time
from Jan. /, 1909. until May IS, 1910.
The attorney general, against the OBJ
lection of defendant, was permitted
to ask some Of the witnesses this
question: How many times have
you drunk malt or beer there in the
last year and half?" The objection
to the question that it embraced more
time than alleged in the information
was over-ruled. This ruling, even If
erroneous, is not prejudicial. The time
inquired about was at best but a
slight variance and numerous witness
ses answered substantially the same
question without any objection on the
part of the defendant
4. Error cannot be predicated upon
the refusal Of the court at the close OF
the states case to advise the jury to
return a verdict of not guilty, as the
Jury is not bound by such advice
s No error was committed in per-
hitting the state after it had rested
Its main case, to reopen the case for