
    State v. G. I. Lincoln.
    May Term, 1901.
    Present: Rowell, Tyler, Mtjnson, Start, Watson and Stafford, JJ.
    Opinion filed July 22, 1901.
    
      Intoxicating liquor — Legal sufficiency of evidence — V. 8. —Payment of tlie United States special tax as a liquor seller is sufficient evidence, under the statute, to warrant a finding tliat the person paying the same is a common seller and that the premises kept by him are a common nuisance.
    Information in Chancery. Chittenden County. The information charged the defendant with keeping a liquor nuisance, in certain premises, and prayed for a permanent in junetion against the further maintenance of said nuisance by the defendant in said premises. Heard on bill, answer and oral testimony in vacation following the April Term, 1900, before Taft, Chancellor. A decree was rendered in accordance with' the prayer of the bill. The defendant appealed.
    The chancellor found that at the time of the filing of the information the defendant was in occupation of the described premises, and that he had paid the United States special tax as a retail liquor dealer for the year covering the date of the .alleged offense and the’date of the filing of the information.
    
      Bdmund C. Mower, State’s Attorney, for the state.
    
      Cushman & Sherman for the defendant.
   Rowell, J.

According to State v. Taft, not yet reported, payment of the United States special tax as a liquor seller is sufficient evidence under the statute to warrant a finding that the person paying the same is a common seller and the premises kept by him a common nuisance.

Decree affirmed and cause remanded.  