Commonwealth v. Uhrig
| Decision Date | 07 January 1885 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Joseph Uhrig |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 24, 1884.
Middlesex.
Indictment for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a certain tenement in Cambridge, used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors, on January 1, 1884 and on divers other days and times between that day and June 5, 1884. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
The government offered evidence tending to show that the defendant kept an inn called the Prospect House, in Cambridge; and that on February 17, March 16, and March 23 1884, each of which days was Sunday, the defendant by his servant sold intoxicating liquors to several persons, who drank the same on the premises.
It was admitted that the defendant kept said house as an inn; and that, during all the time covered by the indictment, he was duly licensed as an innholder, and also held a license of the first class to sell intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises.
The defendant requested the judge to instruct the jury as follows: "If the defendant did not intend to violate his licenses, or either of them, and was not aware that either he or his servant was doing so, he cannot be convicted under this indictment, although he or his servant did ignorantly and unintentionally make a sale to a person to whom he was not authorized by said licenses, or either of them, to make such sale, upon proof of that sale."
The judge refused to give this instruction. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
C Robinson, Jr., for the defendant.
H. N Shepard, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
OPINION
Devens J.
That the defendant was not entitled to have the instruction requested given in the form presented, is clear, as it would include a case where the defendant was ignorant of the law and thus violated it unintentionally. But, if not open to this very obvious criticism, it is objectionable on other grounds. It makes no distinction between the master and servant, and treats the act of making an illegal sale, if done by either unintentionally, as involving no criminal responsibility. Guilty knowledge that one is acting in violation of law is not essential to the offence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Mixer
...intoxicating. To the same effect see Commonwealth v. Goodman, 97 Mass. 117;Commonwealth v. Hallett, 103 Mass. 452;Commonwealth v. Uhrig, 138 Mass. 492;Commonwealth v. Savery, 145 Mass. 212, 13 N. E. 611;Commonwealth v. Daly, 148 Mass. 428, 19 N. E. 209;Commonwealth v. O'Kean, 152 Mass. 584,......
-
Commonwealth v. Mixer
...it was intoxicating. To the same effect see Commonwealth v. Goodman, 97 Mass. 117; Commonwealth v. Hallett, 103 Mass. 452; Commonwealth v. Uhrig, 138 Mass. 492; Commonwealth v. Savery, 145 Mass. 212, 13 N.E. 611; Commonwealth v. Daly, 148 Mass. 428, 19 N.E. 209; Commonwealth v. O'Kean, 152 ......
-
Turner v. Fitchburg R. Co.
... ... Com. v. Raymond, ... 97 Mass. 569; Hourigan v. Nowell, 110 Mass. 470; ... Com. v. Wentworth, 118 Mass. 441; Com. v ... Uhrig, 138 Mass. 492 ... Even if ... the plaintiff had succeeded in showing that he was entitled ... to a right of way across the ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Liberty Products Co.
... ... 6; the sale of intoxicating liquors, ... though neither defendant nor his servant intended to violate ... the conditions of the license and the sale was made in ... ignorance of the fact that the purchaser was one of a class ... to which no sale could legally be made: Com. v ... Uhrig, 138 Mass. 492; Com. v. Finnegan, 124 ... Mass. 324; McCutcheon v. People, 69 Ill. 601, 606; ... State v. Hartfiel, 24 Wis. 60; Ulrich v ... Com., 69 Ky. 400, 6 Bush (Ky.) 400. The rule was ... concisely stated by Chief Justice Cooley in People v ... Roby, 52 Mich. 577, 18 N.W. 365 (Mich.), ... ...