TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Bennett

State of Maine v. Duncan Bennett

State v. Bennett, 7 A. 903 (Me. 1887)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 3, 1887
Judges
Emery, Haskell, Libbey, Peters, Virgin, Walton
Citations
7 A. 90379 Me. 551887 Me. LEXIS 15
Headnotes
Indictment. Lobster law. Stat. 1885, c. 275, § 21. An indictment tliat avers that the defendant “did have in Ms possession” certain lobsters, without averring that he did not liberate them alive, charges no offense, and is bad on demurrer.
Summary
On exceptions. Indictment under the lobster law. The exceptions were to the ruling of the court in overruling a demurrer to the indictment. cited: Smith v. Moore, 6 Maine, 274; Com. v. Maxwell, 2 Pick. 138; Com. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130; State v. Smith, 61 Maine, 388.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Haskell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Haskell, J.

The statute 1885, c. 275, § 21, provides that "it is unlawful to . . catch, ... or possess,” certain female and short lobsters, "and such lobsters, when caught, shall be liberated alive, . . under a penalty of one dollar for each lobster so caught . . or in possession, not so liberated.”

The penalty is for not liberating alive certain lobsters caught, or in possession, or in other words for destroying them.

The indictment avers that the defendant "did have in his possession ” certain female and short lobsters. All this might be true, and yet no offense be committed, because the defendant might just then have taken the lobsters from the sea mixed *56 promiscuously with large lobsters, having an intention of liberating alive the lobsters described in the indictment as soon as he could do so.

Exceptions sustained. Demurrer sustained. Indictment quashed.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Virgin, Libbey and Emery, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list