TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Siren v. State

Mat Siren v. State of Nebraska

Siren v. State, 111 N.W. 798 (Neb. 1907)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 18, 1907
Docket
No. 14,787
Judges
Albert, Duffie, Jackson
Citations
111 N.W. 79878 Neb. 7781907 Neb. LEXIS 244
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Statutes: Construction. The court will not read into a statute exceptions not made by the legislature. 2. Criminal Law: Penalty. It is no objection to a criminal statute that it does not provide the minimum penalty which may be imposed for its violation.
Summary
Error to the district court for Hamilton county: Benjamin F. Good, Judge.

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

Opinion of the Court — Duffie

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

Duffie, C.

The plaintiff in error,, a licensed saloon-keeper in the village of Giltner, Hamilton county, was informed against for unlawfully keeping the windows of his saloon obstructed by screens, window curtains, blinds, etc., on the 29th day of July, 1905, and at other and different times. On the trial he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $25 and the costs of prosecution. We do not . care to spend'time in examining the errors assigned by the plaintiff in error. It clearly appears from his own evidence that he was a licensed saloon-keeper; that the front win *779 dows of his saloon were provided with window shades which were drawn down so as to obstruct a view through the windows into his saloon in the forenoon of each day-while the sun was shining. His saloon fronted to the east, and his excuse is that his cigar case is in the front part of the saloon and that it was necessary to pull the shades in order to protect his goods. This is no legal excuse. We cannot read into the statute an exception not made by the legislature. The judgment was right according to the defendant’s own showing. The fact that the statute does not provide a minimum punishment for the offense is not an objection.

We recommend an affirmance of the judgment.

Albert and Jackson, CC., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1916: 11928: 11930: 11931: 11939: 11978: 11998: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Invol. Dissol. of Battle Creek Bank575 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 1998)
  2. State v. Certain Contraceptive Materials7 Conn. Super. Ct. 264 (1939)
  3. Elmen v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment231 N.W. 772 (Neb. 1930)
  4. Hamilton v. Bayer218 N.W. 746 (Neb. 1928)
  5. State ex rel. Thayer v. School District156 N.W. 641 (Neb. 1916)
  6. State ex rel. Sorensen v. Farmers State Bank237 N.W. 862 (Neb. 1931) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. In re Invol. Dissol. of Battle Creek Bank575 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 1998)
  2. Opinion No. (1978)(Neb. Att'y Gen. Mar. 3, 1978)
  3. State v. Certain Contraceptive Materials7 Conn. Super. Ct. 264 (1939)
  4. State ex rel. Sorensen v. Farmers State Bank237 N.W. 862 (Neb. 1931) · Dissent
  5. Elmen v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment231 N.W. 772 (Neb. 1930)
  6. Hamilton v. Bayer218 N.W. 746 (Neb. 1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on 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