141 Mass. 58 (1886), Commonwealth v. Worcester

Citation:141 Mass. 58, 6 N.E. 700
Opinion Judge:MORTON, C.J.
Party Name:COMMONWEALTH v. WORCESTER.
Attorney:[6 N.E. 702] M.F. Dickinson, Jr., for defendant. E.J. Sherman, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
Case Date:January 13, 1886
Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 58

141 Mass. 58 (1886)

6 N.E. 700

COMMONWEALTH

v.

WORCESTER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 13, 1886

Complaint for maintaining a screen in violation of Pub.St. c. 100, § 12, as amended by St.1882, c. 259. At the trial in the superior court before ALDRICH, J., it appeared that the defendant, a duly-licensed innholder, was proprietor of the Hotel Carrolton, corner of Providence and Church streets, in Boston; that he maintained therein a bar-room, in which he was authorized to sell liquors under a first-class license; that the bar-room fronted on Providence street, and was a clear room, about 32 feet long and 18 feet wide, having two windows and a door on Providence street; that the bar was on the westerly side of the room, opposite to and parallel with the street; that it extended southerly about 15 feet from the northerly wall of said room, having in front a large rail, and behind it, upon the wall, a sideboard, on which was a bar-pump and the liquors which were kept for sale; that adjoining this, on the southerly end, was a lunch or oyster counter some nine feet long, fitted up with a soap-stone bed for opening oysters, being at the same height, [6 N.E. 701] but not of the same width, as the bar, but having no rail in front, nor any sideboard in the rear; that in the rear was a door opening into a hall of the hotel; that the space between the oyster counter and the southerly wall of the room, being about eight feet, was unoccupied by any bar or counter, being entirely open; that in the southerly wall, near the south-westerly corner, were doors opening into two water-closets, being the only ones upon this floor; that prior to the defendant's proprietorship of the place a wire had been stretched along the whole length of the room near the ceiling, parallel to and in front of the bar, and upon this was a sliding curtain; that on the day alleged, which was Sunday, the doors of the bar-room were locked, and, so far as appeared, no sales were made therein; that the curtain was drawn from the southerly wall northward upon the wire, covering the open space, and lapping over upon the oyster counter some seven feet; and that no portion of the bar proper was covered by the curtain, nor was there any obstruction in any part of the room where, so far as appeared, liquors were ever sold. The defendant claimed, and offered to prove, that the curtain was hung thus for the purpose only...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP