網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

92 ATLANTIC REPORTER

Pennsylvania R. Co., Soriero v., two cases
(N. J.)....

Pennsylvania R. Co., Spada v. (N. J.)...
Pennsylvania R. Co., Titus v. (N. J.).
People's R. Co., Spahn v. (Del. Super.).
Percival, Baldwin v. (Vt.).
Perkins v. McBride (N. J.)..
Perkins, State v. (Vt.)..

Perow Co. v. Lewiston Sec. Co. (Me.)..
Petow v. North British & Mercantile Ins.
Co. of London and Edinburgh (N. J. Sup.) 272
Petterson v. Petterson (N. J.).
Pfeifer v. Badenhop (N. J. Sup.).
Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co., Du Ross v.
(Del. Super.)....

.1087
273

1 Rhodes Bros. Co. v. Musicians' Protective
516
Union, Local No. 198, A. F. of M. of
Rice v. Braden (Pa.).
Providence (R. I.)...
Rice v. Dinsmore (Md.).
Richardson, Malkus v. (Md.).
Ridgeley v. Walker (N. J.)..
Ridley's-The Old Chambers St. Candy Man-
ufactory v. Brockhurst (N. J.)

811

Ridout, Duvall v. (Md.).
Riker v. Riker (N. J.)....
Rinehuls v. Ely (Pa.).

812
.1030
..1033
206
335
.1008

Robinson v. Robinson (N. J.).

94
746

Robison v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.).
Roby, Parsons v. (N. H.)...

736

529 Rochester v. Indiana County Gas Co. (Pa.) 717
.1085 Rogge, American Radiator Co. v. (N. J.
Sup.)

218

Rollins v. Blackden (Me.)
Rollins v. Rollins (N. H.).

Roren Drop Forging Co. v. Union Mfg. &
Roma v. Climax Co. of Lowell (Conn.).
Drop Forging Co. (R. I.)..

Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co., Whittington v. (Del. Super.)

Phillips v. Crownfield (Md.).
Phillips, Crownfield v. (Md.).

Phipps, Heron v. (Pa.)..

Phoenix Ins. Co., Fadden v. (N. H.)

Pickering, Bartlett v. (Me.).
Pierce, Calkins v. (Me.).
Pierce v. Smith (Me.).

Pierce, State v. (Vt.).
Pillard v. Chesapeake S. S. Co. of Balti-

more (Md.)..

1040
829

Pindle v. Randall (R. I.).
Pinkham, Jonas Edwards & Son v. (Me.).. 817
Pio, Surace v. (Me.).
Piscataquis County

621

Com'rs, Peakes

(Me.)

Pittsburgh, M. & Y. R. Co., Marine Coal
Co. v. (Pa.)..

Plumb, McMahon v. (Conn.).
Plummer, Industrial Savings & Loan Co. v.
(N. J.)..

Plummer v. Washington, B. & A. Electric
R. Co. (Md.)..

Polland v. Grand Trunk R. Co. of Can-
ada (Me.)..

Pollica v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co. (Vt.)

Poole v. Sherman (R. I.).

Portland Terminal Co., Cooney v. (Me.).
Powell, Deal v. (Vt.)..

Powers v. Rutland R. Co. (Vt.)..

Pratt v. Hill (Md.).

Pressey, De Zeng Standard Co. v. (N. J.
Sup.)

Press Pub. Co., Stahl v. (Pa.).
Probate Court of Exeter, Champlin v. (R.
I.)

Public Service Corp. of New Jersey, Green-
leaf v. (N. J.)..

[ocr errors]

Public Service Corp. of New Jersey, Miller v. (N. J.)....

Public Service Gas Co. v. Board of Public

Quail, State v. (Del. Gen. Sess.).
Quarryville R. Co., Harnish v. (Pa.).
Quimby's Estate, In re (N. J. Ch.)

Utility Com'rs (N. J.)..

Public Service R. Co. v. Board of Public

V.

Utility Com'rs (N. J.)...

Public Service R. Co., Jones v. (N. J.).
Public Service R. Co., Ruggieri v. (N. J.)..
Public Service R. Co., Solomon v. (N. J...
Pushcart v. New York Shipbuilding Co. (N.
J. Sup.).

Ramsden, Huntington v. (N. H.).
Ramsden, Towle v. (N. H.).
Rand, Farr v. (Vt.).

Randall, Johnson v., two cases (R. I.).
Randall, Pindle v. (R. I.).
Raystown Water Power Co. v. Brumbaugh

(Pa.)

R. B. Dunning & Co., Keeling-Easter Co. v. (Me.)

Page

604

Reitze, State v. (N. J. Sup.)...
Reliance Life Ins. Co., Titlow v. (Pa.).
379 Rengier v. Kunzler (Pa.).
944 Reynolds v. Clark (Del. Super.).
727 Reynolds, Swecker v. (Pa.).
101 Reynoldsville Water Co., Borough of Rey-
395
noldsville v. (Pa.).

..1082

278 .1080

982

344

343

606 .1087 397 61

942

175

688 113

583

536

38

150 574 178

648

463

543

....

641 ..1087

847

474

394

Saco Grange, Patrons of Husbandry, No.
53, Graffam v. (Me.)....
St. Albans Granite Co. v. Elwell & Co.
(Vt.)

58

209

586 .1078

Rose, Moyn v. (Pa.).
Rosenberg, State v. (Vt.)..
Rosenthal, State v. (N. J.).

.1018
39
145
.1087

Roseville Trust Co. v. Curtiss (N. J. Ch.).. 580
Roth v. Stuerken (Md.)..

808

Page

576

747

554

873
76

Rothwell, State v. (Del. Gen. Sess.).
R. P. Hazzard Co., Dudley v. (Me.),

Ruffner v. Jamison Coal & Coke Co. (Pa.)..1075
Ruggieri v,. Public Service R. Co. (N. J.) 61
Russell v. Fraternities Health & Accident
Ass'n (Me.)

820

Ruthenian Greek Catholic Congregation,
Bright v. (Pa.)...

Rutland R. Co., Powers v. (Vt.).

85

521 339 427

859
517

131 463

649

974

St. Laurent v. Manchester St. Ry. (N. H.) 959
St. Pierre v. Peerless Casualty Co. (N. H.) 840
St. Vincent's Church, Madison, v. Madison
(N. J.)..

Salter v. Greenwood (Me.).
Salvail, State v. (N. H.).

Sanders v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.).
Sanders v. Middleton (Me.).
Sargent's Estate, Hopkins v. (Vt.).
Savage v. Stover (N. J. Sup.).
Schagrin v. Schagrin (Del.)..
Schmid v. Spicer (Del. Super.).
Schmitt, Capital Circle, No. 11, Brother-
Schmidt, Schneider v. (N. J. Ch.).
hood of the Union v. (N. J. Ch.)...
Schneider v. Atkinson (N. J. Sup.).
Schneider v. Schmidt (N. J. Ch.).
859 Schnepfe v. Schnepfe (Md.).
501 Schoppe, State v. (Me.)....
56 Schwartz, Levine v. (N. J. Sup.).
Second Nat. Bank v. Graham (Pa.).
Security Trust & Safe Deposit Co., In re
(Del. Ch.).

596

81

81 789

891

867

274

198

244

Security Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Mar-
tin (Del. Ch.)...

245

Seeley v. Central Vermont R. Co. (Vt.)... 28
Seifert, State v. (N. J.)...
345

Senft v. Western Maryland R. Co. (Pa.)..... 553
Senn v. Senn (Del. Super.).
Seybert v. Hay Walker Brick Co. (Pa.)... 704
987
Shaffer v. Wilmore Coal Co. (Pa.)..
701

348
786

163

546

488

336 336

964 829

829

140

929

Read Drug & Chemical Co. of Baltimore
City, Hopkins Chemical Co. v. (Md.)... 478
Rees, Van Wart v. (Me.)...
Rees' Estate, In re (Pa.).
Reeves, In re (Del. Ch.).
Reighard, McMullin v. (Pa.)..

Shannon v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.)... 167
Shaw, Maynard v. (Pa.)..

328 126 246

Shaw v. Oliver (Me.). . .

204 652

Shepherd v. Maine Cent. R. Co. (Me.). 747 Sherburne v. Sanford (Me.)..

189 997

14 284 862

991

789

[ocr errors]

Sherman, Haworth v. (R. I.).
Sherman v. Howes (R. I.)..
Sherman, Poole v. (R. I.).
Ship Pond Land & Lumber Co., Mace v.
(Me.)

Short, Gebhard v. (Del. Ch.).
Shupe, State v. (N. J. Sup.).
Siemientkowski v. Berwind White Coal

Smith, Folsom v. (Me.).
Smith v. Hibler (N. J. Sup.).

Smith v. Milford (Conn.).

Smith v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.).
Smith, Pierce v. (Me.).

Smith Schoonmaker Co., Voorhees v.

Min. Co. (N. J. Sup.)
Simonson, Debnam v. (Md.).
Simpson, State v. (Me.)..
Skelley v. Skelley (Vt.).
Smeltzer v. Ford City (Pa.).
Smith v. American Woolen Co. (N. H.).. 334
Smith v. Booth Bros. & Hurricane Isle
Granite Co. (Me.).

Stafford, Young v. (N. J. Sup.).
Stahl v. Press Pub. Co. (Pa.).
Stahl v. Sollenberger (Pa.)...
Stambaugh's Estate, In re (Pa.).
Stamford Motor Co., Banta v. (Conn.).
Standard Fire Ins. Co., Follett v. (N.
Standeven v. Gall (N. J. Sup.)..
Stanley, Waite v. (Vt.)..
Stark v. Winslow (N. H.).
State v. Alpert (Vt.)..
State v. Berry (Me.).
State v. Bigelow (Vt.).

State, Bradfield v. (Del. Gen. Sess.).
State v. Burke (N. II.)..

[blocks in formation]

J. Sup.)..

Smith v. Smith (N. J. Ch.).
Smith's Will, In re (Vt.).
Snyder, Appeal of (Pa.)..
Snyder v. Directors of School Dist. of Bor-

716
763
720

ough of Greensburg (Pa.)..
Snyder, White v. (Md.).
Sollenberger, Stahl v. (Pa.).
Solomon v. Public Service R. Co. (N. J.).. 942
Soriero v. Pennsylvania R. Co., two cases
(N. J.)...

Spada v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.)..
Spahn v. People's R. Co. (Del. Super.).
Spicer, Schmid v. (Del. Super.)....
Stacy v. Dolan (Vt.)..

State v. Kittredge (N. J. Sup.).
State v. Kubaszewski (N. J.).
State v. Littman (N. J. Sup.).
State v. Lovell (N. J. Sup.).
State v. MacRorie (N. J. Sup.)
State v. Maine Cent. R. R. (N. H.)..
State v. Maryland Electric Rys. Co.
State v. Mulkerrin (Me.).

State v. Butler (Me.).

State v. Cavalluzzi (Me.).

State v. Collingswood Sewerage Co., two

State v. Perkins (Vt.)..

State v. Pierce (Vt.).

State v. Quail (Del. Gen. Sess.).
State v. Reitze (N. J. Sup.).
State v. Rosenberg (Vt.).
State v. Rosenthal (N. J.).
State v. Rothwell (Del. Gen. Sess.)
State v. Salvail (N. H.).
State v. Schoppe (Me.).

(N.

...

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

State Board of Assessors, Long Deck Co. v. (N. J.)..........

State Board of Equalization of Texas, Town of Montclair v. (N. J. Sup.).. 909 Steadman v. roster (N. J.). 782 Stephens-Adamson Mfg. Co. v. Bigelow (N. 898 234 702

103 .1003 364 675 318 .1085

486

253

53

280

791 223

126

604 379

J.)

Sternberg v. Wolff (N. J. Ch.).
Stevens Tank & Tower Co. v. Berlin Mills
Co. (Me.).

Stevenson v. Mellor (Pa.).
Stewart, Asper v. (Pa.)..
Stewart v. Childs Co. (N. J.).
Stewart v. Stewart (Pa.)..
Steynen, Biogini v. (Md.).
Stokes, Meurer v. (Pa.).
Stover, Savage v. (N. J. Sup.).
Straus, Terlecki v. (N. J.).
Stuerken, Roth v. (Md.).

Sun Ins. Office of London, Eng., Wakely
v. (Pa.)..

.1087
821
853
1037

Supreme Lodge, Knights & Ladies of Hon-
or, v. Ulanowsky (Pa.)...
Surace v. Pio (Me.)..

Swallow v. Swallow (N. J. Ch.).
Swasey v. Maine Cent. R. Co. (Me.).
Swecker v. Reynolds (Pa.)

[blocks in formation]

Swick, Moosbrugger v. (N. J. Sup.).
Swinley v. Hall (N. J.)....

578 837 (Md.) 961 785

32 Thomas, Taylor v. (N. H.). 619 Thompson v. Graham (Pa.).

978 Thrasher, Belmont Dairy Co. v. (Md.)..

988 Thurston v. Carter (Me.)..

164 Tilton v. Court of Common Pleas of Ocean
819 County (N. J. Sup.)....
937

Titlow v. Reliance Life Ins. Co. (Pa.).
Titus v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.).
Tomuschat v. Aachen & Munich Fire Ins.
Co. (N. H.)....

Tomuschat v. North British & Mercantile
Co. (N. H.)..

Page

53

898

662

170

439

270

353

v. (Del.

398

585

.1087 808

136

711

621 872 325

180

713

133

392

319

806

506

284

182

713

820

.1022

76

269

586

.1087 554 312

922

Travers v. Hartman, two cases (Del.
Super.)

740

876

870

747

944

329

329

87 Torrington Water Co., Hayes v. (Conn.).. 406 88 Towle v. Ramsden (N. H.).

336 97 926 6

810

740

118

766

295

853 Town of Boonton v. Logan (N. J. Sup.)..
452 Town of Bow v. Farrand (N. H.).

813 Town of Grand Isle v. McGowan (Vt.)...
842 Town of Hampton, Hampton Beach Imp.
326 Co. v. (N. H.)....

549

773 Town of Hampton, Newcomb v. (N. H.).. 802
..1041 Town of Manchester, Bennington County
275 v. (Vt.)..

387 Town of Milford, Smith v. (Conn.).
580 Town of Montclair v. State Board of
376
Equalization of Taxes (N. J. Sup.).....

270

Town of New Boston, Blood v. (N. H.).. 954
Town of Pittsfield, Parker v. (Vt.).
24
Town of West Hartford v. Connecticut
Fair Ass'n (Conn.)...

816 675

432

1 Township of Hanover, McCormick v. (Pa.) 195 218 Township of Riverside, Mitsch v. (N. J.) 436 89 Traders' & Mechanics' Bank of Pittsburgh, 576 Commonwealth v. (Pa.)...

145 Trask, Hunt v. (N. J.)..

.1087
859
163 Trost, Hoffmeier v. (N. J.).

867 Truitt v. Lecates (Del. Super.)

750 .1086

855 277

850

Tustin, First Nat. Bank v. (Pa.)......
Tuttle v. Harris (N. J.)..

Twin State Gas & Electric Co., Pollica
v. (Vt.).....

Ulanowsky, Supreme Lodge, Knights &
Ladies of Honor v. (Pa.)..

711

Union Grange Fair Ass'n, Whitcher v. (N. H.)...

735

United Electric Light & Water Co., Lane v. (Conn.)...

430

1018

Union Mfg. & Drop Forging Co., Roren
Drop Forging Co. v. (R. I.).
United States Exp. Co., Matheke v. (N. J.) 399
United States Exp. Co., O'Connel v. (N. J.) 399
Van Duzer v. Commonwealth Tel. Co. (Pa.)
Van Wart v. Rees (Me.)..
Vermeule v. York Water Co., two cases
(Me.)

Vermont Val. R. R., Averill v. (Vt.).
Vogel Co., J. Wiss & Sons Co. v. (N. J.)...
Voorhees v. Smith Schoonmaker Co. (N. J.
Sup.)

[blocks in formation]

Page

Page

119 West Penn. Rys. Co., Green v. (Pa.)... 341
596 Wetmore's Adm'r v. Karrick (Vt.)..
Wheeler, Commonwealth v. (Pa.)....
Whitacre, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. (Md.)1060
Whitcher V. Union Grange Fair Ass'n
(N. H.)

13 718

150

735

940

White v. Cadmus (N. J. Ch.).
White v. Connecticut Co. (Conn.).
White v. Snyder (Md.).

411

763 .1057 494

White v. Winchester (Md.)..
White Co., Harner v. (Pa.).
Whitefield Sav. Bank & Trust Co., Paro
v. (N. H.)...

331

Whittington v. Philadelphia, B. & W. R.
Co. (Del. Super.).

Wiles, Hill v. (Me.).

812 996

Wiley v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins.
Co. (Conn.).

678

Wilkinson, Gaddis & Co., Langberg v. (N.
J.)

398

Willet v. Lewiston, A. & W. St. Ry. (Me.).10S5
William H. Jones & Co., Beaver Dam
Marble Co. v. (Del. Super.)..

.1012

Williams, City of Baltimore v. (Md.).. .1066
Williams v. Noyes & Nutter Mfg. Co. (Me.) 482
Wilmington Monthly Meeting of Orthodox
Friends, Ninth St. R. Co. v. (Del.). 1085
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Morgan (Del.
Super.)

988

.1015

63 Wilmington & P. Traction Co., McGowan 394 v. (Del. Super.)... 394 Wilmore Coal Co., Shaffer v. (Pa.). . 701 321 Wilton Woolen Co. v. G. H. Bass & Co. 989

(Me.)

Co.,

Linthicum v. (Md.)..
Washington, B. & A. Electric R. Co.,
Plummer v. (Md.)...

Washington Trust Co. v. Norwich & West

Co. (Pa.)...

Weiller v. Weiss (Md.).

erly Traction Co. (Conn.).

Waterbury Mfg. Co., Zalewski v. (Conn.)..
Watkins, McCloy v. (Vt.)..
Watson v. French (Me.).
Weaver v. Consumers' Box Board & Paper

79 328

513 220 360

280

354

136
633

917

536

880 GS2 968 290

553 .1028 .1028 876 663 733

Weiss, Weiller v. (Md.).

Weld, Tebo v. (Del. Super.).

Wennell v. Dowson, two cases (Conn.).
Wentworth v. Wentworth (N. HI.)....
Western Maryland R. Co., Hartman v.

(Pa.)

698 Western Maryland R. Co., Senft v. (Pa.) 553 West Jersey Securities Co., Fleisher v. (N. J. Ch.).

575

West Jersey & S. R. Co. v. Board of Water
Com'rs of Atlantic City (N. J.).

369

[ocr errors]

612

.1057

Winchester, White v. (Md.).
Windsor, Walls v. (Del. Super.)
Winslow, Stark v. (N. H.).

989

733

Wiss & Sons Co. v. H. G. Vogel Co. (N. J.) 350
Wolcott v. Mongeon (Vt.)...

457

585

301

Woodstock Agr. Soc., Bernier v. (Conn.)... 160 Wooley, State v. (Conn.).. 662

Woonsocket St. R. Co., Moore v. (R. I.).. 980 Workingman's Club of Plymouth, Macavicza v. (Pa.)...

Wren, State v. (N. H.)..

Wolff, Sternberg v. (N. J. Ch.).
Woods, Calvert v. (Pa.)...

41 170

[blocks in formation]

(88 Vt. 121)

THE

ATLANTIC REPORTER

VOLUME 92

STATE v. PERKINS.

(Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington. Oct. 14, 1914.)

1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION (8 197*)DEMURRER-WAIVER BY PLEADING OVER.

Exception to the overruling of demurrer to the information is available, notwithstanding defendant's pleading over; his right to insist on his demurrer not being thereby waived.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. § 636; Dec. Dig. § 197.*]

An information merely charging that defendant became a dealer in evergreen trees with out first procuring a license therefor, for which Acts 1910, No. 170, § 5, declares a 'fine, is insufficient, without allegations bringing him within P. S. 5012, as amended by said act of 1910. defining such a dealer as one who buys or sells in any year more than 20 evergreen trees of less than a certain size, not grown on his own land.

TAYLOR, J. The respondent was informed against under P. S. c. 217 as amended 2. LICENSES (§ 42*)—PROSECUTION-INFORMA- by No. 170, Acts of 1910, for becoming a

TION-DEALER IN EVERGREEN TREES."

dealer in evergreen trees without first procuring a license therefor. There was trial

jury at the March term, 1913, of Washington county court, and a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, with exceptions re served by the respondent.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2671; Dec. Dig. § 1059.*] 4. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1178*)—APPEAL-REVIEW-EXCEPTIONS NOT Briefed,

Exceptions taken at the trial, not being briefed, will not be considered by the Supreme Court.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Licenses, Cent. Dig. §§ 88-95; Dec. Dig. § 42.*]

3. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1059*)-APPEAL-REVIEW-RULING ON DEMURRER.

The information is in six counts and charges distinct offenses, four in Waterbury, in Washington county, and two in Duxbury, in said county, all alleged as having been committed in November, 1912. The statute on which this prosecution is based was repealed Supreme court rule 13 (77 Atl. vii) provid- by No. 185, Acts of 1912, approved February ing that, when demurrant is the excepting party, he will not, without leave, be heard on any 21, 1913, and taking effect from its passage; cause of demurrer not shown to have been spe- but the repealing act excepted offenses comcifically pointed out on the hearing below, ap-mitted prior to February 21, 1913, and "causplies to unconstitutionality of the statute, violation of which is charged by the information,

demurrer to which was overruled.

es, proceedings or penalties based thereon." Before trial the respondent filed both a general and a special demurrer to the information. There was a hearing on the demurrers, which were overruled and an exception allowed the respondent. Thereupon a jury was impaneled and the trial proceeded.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3011-3013; Dec. Dig. § 1178.*]

5. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1147*)-DIRECTING VERDICT-PROVINCE OF MOTION.

P. W. Perkins was convicted of violation of statute, and brings exceptions. Reversed and remanded.

Argued before POWERS, C. J., and MUNSON, WATSON, HASELTON, and TAYLOR, JJ.

[1] The respondent's exception to the action of the court in overruling his demurrer is available, notwithstanding his pleading over. This being a criminal case, he has not thereby waived his right to insist upon his demurrer. State v. Bosworth, 74 Vt. 315, 52 Atl. 423. The case does not show how it happened that two demurrers were filed. No specification of the grounds of demurrers relied upon was filed with the general demurrer, as required by the rules of the county court (rule 10, § 3); and the socalled special demurrer presents no ground that would not have been reached by general demurrer with specifications under the rule. County The hearing below was on the grounds assigned in the special demurrer. It is proba

The proper sphere of a motion for a directed verdict is merely the questioning of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the allegations of the evidence, so that an exception to a refusal to direct a verdict for insufficiency of the information or unconstitutionality of the statute, a matter in the court's discretion, will not lie.

Exceptions from Washington Court; Frank L. Fish, Judge.

J. Ward Carver, State's Atty., of Barre, for the State. Richard A. Hoar, of Barre, for respondent.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3038, 3072, 3073; Dec. Dig. 1147.*]

For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

ble that the so-called special demurrer was, he has a right under the Constitution to deintended as a specification of the grounds of mand. The information wholly fails to demurrer required by the rule and will be satisfy the requirements of the law, in that so treated.

none of the facts necessary to constitute the [2] The several counts of the information offense, except want of license, are charged, are identical, except as to time and place. and the respondent's demurrer should have In each it is alleged that the respondent on been sustained. a day named, at a place named, did become [3] Respondent's counsel discuss in their a dealer in evergreen trees without first pro- brief on this exception the constitutionality curing a license therefor. Six grounds of of the statute; but the question is not bedemurrer are assigned, but all come to the fore us. It was not urged as a ground of same question, viz., whether it is necessary demurrer below, and he was not granted to set forth the facts constituting this of leave to raise the question here. Supreme fense further than to charge that the re- court rule 13 (77 Atl. vii) provides that when spondent became a dealer in evergreen trees the demurrant is the excepting party he will without license. P. S. 5012, as amended, not, without leave, be heard upon any cause provided:

of demurrer not shown by the bill of excep“A person, firm or corporation that buys or tions to have been specially pointed out on sells in any year more than twenty evergreen the hearing below. In this case leave was trees of less than seven inches in diameter at the butt as cut, not grown upon his own land, not asked. The rules of this and the county shall be deemed a dealer in evergreen trees.'

court relating to hearings on demurrer are P. S. 5013 provided:

designed, among other things, to confine the “A person, firm or corporation shall, before inquiry here to a review of the question debecoming a dealer in evergreen trees procure a cided in the court below. license therefor as provided in this chapter." [4, 5] Other exceptions were taken at the

In other sections the statute provided how trial, but they need not be discussed. Some the license shall be secured and the fees of these are not briefed, and so are not for therefor. Section 5 of No. 170, Acts of 1910, consideration; others are too plainly withprovided:

out merit to require notice; and still others “A person, firm or corporation that becomes are not likely to arise on a new trial. The a dealer in evergreen trees without procuring a exception to the refusal of the court to dilicense therefor as provided in this act shall be fined not more than three hundred rect a verdict for the respondent "because dollars, and each transaction of purchase or the law is wholly unconstitutional" should sale shall constitute a distinct offense.”

be noticed. Such an exception is not availThus it is seen that one section of the stat- able to raise the question. A motion for a ute provided who should be deemed a dealer directed verdict is in the nature of a dein evergreen trees, and another section pe murrer to the evidence (Bass v. Rublee, 76 nalized the becoming such dealer without li. Vt. 395, 57 Atl. 965), and brings before the

The state conten that, the offense court the question of the sufficiency of the being statutory, it is sufficient to charge the evidence to support the allegations of the inoffense in the language of the section of the formation. An exception to the refusal of statute providing the penalty. While it is the court to direct a verdict is not the aptrue that an indictment or information for a propriate course to raise, on review, the sufstatutory offense is sufficient if it follows ficiency of the information or the validity the language thereof, when every fact neces of the law on which it is based. State v. sary to constitute the offense is charged or Rosenberg, 88 Vt. — 92 Atl. 145; State v. necessarily implied by following such lan- Louanis, 79 Vt. 463, 65 Atl. 532, 9 Ann. Cas. guage (State v. Bannister, 79 Vt. 524, 65 194; Brattleboro v. Wait, 46 Vt. 689. Atl. 586), the converse is equally true that it is not sufficient to pursue even the very cretion, where the declaration or informawords of the statute unless by so doing you tion is fatally defective, so that a motion fully, directly, and expressly allege the fact in arrest of judgment would have to be susor facts in the doing or not doing whereof tained, end the case by directing a verdict the offense consists. State v. Higgins, 53 Vt. for the defendant or respondent. Wright 191; State v. Fiske, 66 Vt. 434, 29 Atl. 633. v. Bourdon, 50 Vt. 494; Batchelder v. Kin

This information omits to allege the facts ney, 44 Vt. 150; Amidon v. Aiken, 28 Vt. necessary to bring the respondent within the 440; Dyer v. Tilton, 23 Vt. 313. But it bescope of the definition of a dealer in ever-ing in the discretion of the court in such green trees. He is left to refer to the stat-case whether to allow a verdict to be taken, ute to ascertain what constitutes such a leaving the question to be raised on a modealer; and, even if he were to refer to the tion in arrest, or to direct a verdict on that statute for the definition, there is still noth- ground to save further expense, an exception ing in the information to apprise him of to the court's refusal to sustain the motion the transaction complained of-neither with does not lie. Baxter v. Winooski Turnpike whom nor whether a purchase or sale. This Co., 22 Vt. 114, 52 Am. Dec. 84. clearly does not "apprise him of the cause Judgment and sentence reversed, and cause

cense.

The trial court may, as a matter of dis

« 上一頁繼續 »