State v. Paddock

Information. License Law. A single act of selling spirituous liquor, without license, constitutes an offense, up der the statute of 1846. State v. Bugbee, 22 Vt. 32. If an information sets forth the offense in the words of the act it is sufficient; and where an information for a violation of the license law, set forth that the respond ent sold distilled spirituons liquors, in a less quantity than twenty gallons, and in quantity of one pint and more, it was held sufficient to prove the offense under each count, as specific as stated; and evidence that the respondent sold distilled spirituous liquors, in quantity of one pint or more, and less than twenty gallons, was all that is required. And whore the court, upon such an information, containing one hundred counts, “ directed the jury to return a verdict of guilty for each act of selling;” it was held, that though the jury are the ultimate judges of both the law and fact, there was no error in the charge, as it must be considered an expression simply of the-opinion of the court, of the law in the case. Where an information, containing one hundred counts, each count having a distinct caption, and was only signed at the close of the last count, and upon the last page, but the pages were connected together, the information was held sufficient.

Information, in one hundred counts, — for selling without a license, foreign and domestic distilled spirituous liquors in a less quantity than twenty gallons, and in quantity of one pint and more. The testimony on the part of the government, tended to show that the respondent, between the first day of January, A. D. 1850, and the thirty-first day of December, A. D. 1850, sold rum in various quantities, from one pint to two gallons, at various times, to the number of forty-nine or over. The respondent requested the court to instruct the jury, that the government must prove the sale of the quantity alledged in the several counts. That proof of the sale of one pint would not support a count for the sale of one quart or one gallon, the proof of the sale of one quart or one gallon would not support a count for the sale of one pint. The court refused so to instruct the jury. The respondent also requested the court to instruct the jury, that under the present information, they were not at liberty to find the respondent guilty of any breaches, except such as are contained on the last sheet of the paper presented as the information, (that being the only sheet signed, though the sheets were connected together.) The court refused so to instruct the jury, but directed them to> return a verdict of guilty, for each act of selling rum in any quantity less than twenty gallons, not exceeding in number, the counts, for selling rum, contained in all the sheets of the paper submitted as the information in this case. To all which, the respondent excepts. After verdict and before judgment, respondent also moved in arrest of judgment and sentence, for the insufficiency of the information, which motion was overruled by the court. To which the respondent also excepts. 1. Every charge in an indictment must be sufficient to support itself. And the respondent should he informed, in the indictment, of the extent of the crime with which he is charged. In the present indictment, he is charged, in one count, for instance, with selling one gallon of rum, and the jury " directed,” (the jury not being permitted to judge of the law or fact,) to bring in a verdict of guilty on that count, even though the proof show a sale of but one pint. We think that herein there, is error. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 172, 229. An indictment, or information, should state the offense charged with precision, “ should be certain to every intent, and without any intendment to the contrary. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 172. 2. The jury are the judges of the law in criminal cases. State v. Croteau, 23 Yt. 14. U. S. Law Mag. Sept. No., 1851, p. 257, 278; No discretion was left to the -jury in this case, of law or fact; they were but the mere automatons of the court, and signed such verdict as they were directed to. Such a course of proceeding is repugnant to the constitution of our State, and to the decisions of this court. Art. 10 of Constitution, Comp. Stat., p. 32. 3. Judgment should'be arrested for the insufficiency of the information. There are but five perfect counts in the information in ,alL Jt is not enough for a States’ Attorney to fill up one sheet of blank counts in an indictment and sign one of the half sheets and then ,claim that twenty-one other half sheets unsigned are made perfect indictments by merely stringing them to the first half sheet that is signed. This is dispensing criminal justice in quite too criminal a manner — and is establishing a precedent that, may ultimately be productive of evil consequences. The law which has always governed in matters of this kind, ought not to be further relaxed. It is well settled, not only in civil suits, but in criminal prosecutions, that a party is not bound to prove the allegations of time, place, quality, quantity, or value as ¡alleged, unless they are descripjive. 1 Greenleaf Ev. §61. 3 S.taxkie Ev. 1539. 2. The fact, that each sheet has a distinct caption, is no objection, for it is no part of the bill, and may be rejected as surplus-age. State v. Gilbert, 13 Vt. 647. State v. Nixon, 18 Vt. 70. We are not aware of any objections tó this information, which do not apply to the information. State v. Bowen. As to the information, State v. Hogedon, 3 Vt. 481. State v. Gilbert, 13 Vt. 647. Clark v. Stoughton et al., 18 Vt. 50.