Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1910-10-11
Exceptions overruIed In Foge Case.
RESPONDENT MUST TAKE PENALTY FOB
EAST SUMNER LIQUOR NUISANCE.

A decision overriding the exceptions
of the defendant was last week handeo
down by the law court in the case OF
State vs. Maurice r. Fogg. This case
was tried at the October term OF court IN
1909, and was the leading case OF the
year In the interest felt in 1t.
Maurice R. Fogg OF East Sumner was
Indicted for maintaining a liquor null
sance at East Sumner, 10 the boarding
house OF the corn shop at that place, the
events from which the indictment grew
occurring mainly on the 9th and 9th OF
July, 1909. Mr.. Fogg is superintendent
of the corn shop, has served as one OF
the selectmen of Simmer for several
years. and in 1909 was chairman OF the
board.
On the trial verdict Of guilty was re-
turned, and Chief Justice Emery impos.
ed sentence of s400 fine and four
months in Jail. The case was taken to
the law court, which overrules the ex-
ceptions, and the sentence will have to
be carried out.
The rescript was drawn by Judge Pea
BODY, and Is in substance as follows:
The case presents only the questions
whether the place described in the IL :
dictment was a place of resort where
intoxicating liquors were unlawfully
kept, sold, given away, drunk and dis
pensed on the third day of July, 1909,
and whether the respondent then and
there kept and maintained the place.
The respondent admits that on that
night Intoxicating liquors were there
drunk or given away, and 80 the excep'
lions are in their application confined to
the relevancy of evidence as proof of the
character of the place, and OF the con-
nection of the respondent with it at that
time.
The first exception claims that 1t was
error to receive the testimony OF wit
nesses as to what was found in the
boarding house and corn shop indicating
the presence Of intoxicating liquors, the
sounds of disturbance on the night Of
the fourth of July, and the acts OF ar
intoxicated man, who was neither
boarder nor visitor in the boarding
house, as it had not been made to ap
pear that the respondent was in contro
of the place; but as circumstances con
sistent with the charge against the re
spondent relied upon by the state tt
connect him both with the control o
the place and with the acts done ant
conditions found there on the day II
question, we think the evidence was ad
INVISIBLE.
BY the same rule of evidence thu
testimony of the expressman, the sub
ject of the second exception, is admissi
BILE, as to shipments to the responder
of numerous packages from Dayton
Ohio.
AS to the fourth exception the cour
could decline to give the requested in
structions "except so far as given in thu
charge to the jury" II the substance o
those which were correct legal propo
sitions was covered by the charge.
The first was given in substance prop
erly emitting the adverbs commonly
and "habitually" as mere tautology
According to Webster's Dictionary tn
natural meaning of the word "resort" il
"a place of frequent assembly"
The second, requesting a specific neg
alive and affirmative definition of com
mon nuisance, was substantially give
by the justice.
The remaining requested instruction
were properly refused, the fourth be
cause it could not be given without ma
terial modification, and the fifth, sixth
seventh, eighth and tenth because the
are not strictly accurate statements O
the law of the case.