Tidewater Quarry Co. v. Scott. March 1, 1906. [52 S. E. 835.]

1906 The Virginia Law Register  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. 1906.] DIGEST OF OTHER RECENT VIRGINIA DECISIONS. 1906.] DIGEST OF OTHER RECENT VIRGINIA DECISIONS. formal pleadings in writing, a warrant charging the unlawful sale of liquor, and made the basis of the trial in the circuit court on appeal fiom the justice's judgment, must be clear and specific, so as to inform accused of the offense with which he is charged; but such a warrant, charging that defendant did, on a certain day, in a certain magisterial district, and in a certain county, unlawfully sell certain kinds of intoxicating liquors to a certain person, and to divers other persons, was sufficiently definite. Same-Evidence-Distinct Offenses.-In a prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor, where the warrant averred a sale to a certain person, and to d;vers other persons, on a certain date, evidence of a sale made by defendant on a previous date was inadmissible, although such sale was made during the year preceding the institution of the prosecution, within which, under Code 1904, ? 3889, defendant might have been prosecuted for such sale. [Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 29, Cent. Dig. Intoxicating Liquors, ? 273.] Criminal Law-Appeal-Harmless Error.-In a prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor, the act of the commonwealth s attorney in asking defendant, on cross-examination, whether he did not have a United States license to sell liquor, while objectionable, was not prejudicial, where the court told defendant he was not bound to answer, and instructed the jury that they could not draw any inference against defendant from his refusal to answer the same. Intoxicating Liquors-Offenses-Punishment-Statutory Provisions.-Acts 1902-04, p. 224, c. 148, ? 143, with reference to the unlawful sale of liquor, provides that a violation thereof shall be punished by fine, and, in the discretion of the court, by imprisonment. Such section also provides (on page 220) that it shall not be construed as repealing any special act prohibiting the sale of liquor in any county or town. Acts 1901-02, p. 601, c. 516, relative to the illegal sale of liquor in Lancaster county, provides that any person violating the same shall be fined not more than $500, and may be imprisoned until the fine is paid. Held, that the general statute is inoperative in Lancaster county, and one convicted of violating the liquor law in that county can not be sentenced to confinement in the county jail in addition to a sentence of a fine. TIDEWATER QUARRY CO. v. SCOTT. March 1, 1906.
doi:10.2307/1103080 fatcat:pxaeawy7dvfylbkvbh2hp7qu3i