Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-04-07

bound to make such seizures against
the peace Of the state, and contrary to
the form Of the statute in such case
made and provided"
The question Of the suff1ciency of the
indictment was raised, and by agree
ment Of the parties it was reported to
this court with the stipulation that IF
the law court is of opinion that the in
dictment is good and sufficient, as up
on demurrer, the case is to stand for
trial: otherwise the indictment is to be
quashed."
Two objections are urged to the in
dictment: First, the failure to allege
that the liquors. the subject of the cor
rupt offer, were intoxicating liquors.
Second, the failure to allege that the
liquors. the subject of the corrupt Of
fer, were intended for illegal sale.
1t is a cardinal rule Of criminal
pleading that an indictment must por-
tray all the facts that constitute the
crime sought to be charged so that the
court, from an inspection of the indict-
ment can say that, if all the facts al
legged are true, the defendant is guilty.
State VS.. Lynch. 8S Maine, 1876, State
vs.. Doran, 80 Maine, 331.
This indictment sets forth facts that
if the offer alleged was a corrupt Of
fer to induce the deputy sheriff to vio-
late his oath and duty the defendant
would be guilty of attempted bribery
but In setting forth the facts the in
dtctment alleges that the offer was
made to induce the deputy sheriff ia
allow liquors to be shipped into Lew
iston and not to seize or libel them.
The word '1iquors' includes both
I Intoxicating and Intoxicating lio-
uors. Webster's Dictionary, Standard
Dictionary. The statute only author
ICES the seizure. libeling and forfeiture
OF intoxicating liquors intended for sale
IN this state in violation of law. A
warrant to seize intoxicating liquors
must allege that they are Intoxicating
and intended for sale in this state in
violation of law. State VS.. Bartlett, SO
Maine, 564; State VS.. Quincy, 80 Maine
527.
A prosecution for the sale of intoxi-
eating liquors must allege that they are
intoxicating liquors. Form provided by
Chapter 20, r. S. The case Of State
VS.. Beaseley, 81 w. V. TT, relied upon
by the state. is not applicable to the
case at bar.
Ihe case OF State VS.. Beasley Fl w
V. 27H relied upon by the state is not
applicable to the case at bar that was
prosecution under a statute making
it crime to sell spirituous liquors, and
the complaint and warrant allege the
sale In the words of the statute as
9nfrffNnVQ 1{n,,nNc
discussed was the sufficiency of the
proof. In this case the question is the
sufhciency of the pleadings, which were
sunicient In State VS.. Beasley, supre
The allegations in this case do not
describe, the acts of the defendant in
words that portray crime, or in the
words of the, statute describing The
crime which it is claimed he was at.
tempting. to bride the deputy sheriff
to allow him to commit; for the liquors
may have been Notwithstanding.
That the indictment fails to state a
crime is too plain for argument, as
said by the court In Ward vs.. State. AZ
Ind. 293, which was a case where the
defendant was indicted for selling one
pint OF liquor, and the question TO,
the court was the sufficiency of the in
dictment, 1T contains no averment that
the liquor was intoxicating. The stat.
ute prohibits the sale of intoxicating
liquors only. We scarcely need to re.
mark that there are many kinds OF
liquors which are not intoxicating
The indictment should have beer
quashed."
There being no sufficient allegation
| in the indictment to show that the
liquors mentioned were intoxicating
liquors, or they were intended for sale
in this state in violation of law, the
offer, If made as set forth was not an
attempt to bride the officer to allow the
defendant to perform the unlawful act
OF having Intoxicating liquors brough,
INTO the state and sold in violation OF
law.
Indictment quashed.