
    State of Maine vs. Samuel Nowlan.
    
      Pleading. Practice.
    
    A goneral verdict of guilty or not guilty, without any special findings, is all that is usual or necessary in prosecutions under B. S., c. 27, for keeping intoxicating liquors for illegal sale.
    It is enough that the complainant alleges his belief that intoxicating liquors are so kept and deposited by the respondent, without averring that he has probable cause so to believe, or assigning any reason.
    It is sufficient to follow the form given by the statute for use in such cases.
    On exceptions to the rulings of the justice of the superior court.
    Complaint and process of search and seizure coming by appeal from the municipal court of Portland to the superior court.
    The jury rendered a general verdict of guilty, and after verdict and before sentence, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment for the following reasons:
    First. That the verdict should have been special under the direction of the court on all facts necessary to determine the adjudication of the court.
    Second. Because the complaint does not allege that the complainant had probable cause to believe that intoxicating liquors were kept and deposited by the defendant and intended for sale by him.
    Third. Because for lack of sufficient allegation in said complaint the whole proceedings are void.
    This motion was overruled ; to which ruling the defendant excepted.
    The complaint and warrant were in the form given in the R. S., page 315.
    
      J. H. Williams for the respondent.
    R. S., c. 27, § 47, expressly requires that “the jury shall find specially, under the direction of the court, on all facts necessary to determine the adjudication of the court.” .
    The fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States requires that process for search shall only issue upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
    Our state constitution is to the same effect. Art. 1, § 5. There fore, the existence of probable cause should be stated or shown by the complaint.
    
      Charles F. Libby, county attorney, for the state.
   Walton, J.

A special verdict is not necessary in a prosecution for keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same in violation of law. A general verdict- of guilty or not guilty is all that is usual or necessary in such cases. Nor is it necessary that the complaint should contain an averment that the complainant “has probable cause to believe” that the defendant keeps liquors with intent to sell them in violation of law. Neither the statute nor the form enacted by the legislature requires such an averment. It is enough for the complainant to state that he does in fact believe that intoxicating liquors are thus kept by the defendant. It is not necessary for him to add that his belief is a reasonable one. R. S., c. 27, § 35, and form on page 315.

Exceptions overruled.

Appleton, C. J., Dickerson, Barrows and Peters, JJ., concurred.  