Com. v. Goodnow

• Decision Date: 23 October 1891
• Citation: 154 Mass. 487,28 N.E. 677
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. GOODNOW.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

154 Mass. 487

28 N.E. 677

COMMONWEALTH v. GOODNOW.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 23, 1891

Exceptions from superior court, Worcester county CHARLES P. THOMPSON, Judge.

HEADNOTES

Witnesses 337(4)

410 ----

410IV Credibility and Impeachment

410IV(B) Character and Conduct of Witness

410k334 Witnesses Who May Be Impeached as to Character

410k337 Accused as Witness in Criminal Prosecution

410k337(4) Particular Acts or Facts.

In a prosecution for keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell, defendant's attorney stated, in opening the case that defendant had previously been engaged in the business of liquor keeping, and was convicted of the same. Held, in consequence of such statement, that the prosecution was properly allowed to ask defendant, on cross-examination, if he had not sold intoxicating liquors at his hotel in another place four or five years ago.

Witnesses 404

410 ----

410IV Credibility and Impeachment

410IV(E) Contradiction

410k403 Testimony Subject to Contradiction

410k404 In General.

In a prosecution for keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to illegally sell them, where a witness for defendant denies that he was found in an intoxicated condition on defendant's premises when searched by the officers, and further states that he had not drunk intoxicating liquors for the past two years, the prosecution was properly allowed to show what had been such witness' habits as to the use of intoxicating liquors within the time mentioned.

Complaint against Henry W Goodnow for keeping intoxicating liquor with intent to sell. Defendant's attorney, in opening the defense to the jury, stated that defendant used to be engaged in the business of liquor keeping, and was convicted of the same, but that when he moved to his present quarters he gave it up. Defendant testified in his own behalf, and he was asked by the district attorney, in cross-examination "Did you not sell intoxicating liquor at your hotel in the town of Shrewsbury four or five years ago?" Defendant objected to the question, but the court admitted it, and defendant excepted. Defendant said, in answer to said question, that he had not sold it himself, but that his wife and mother-in-law, who lived with him, so sold it at his place, and that he knew that they were so selling. Evidence was offered by the commonwealth that when the officers searched defendant's premises just prior to the making of this complaint against the defendant there were several persons in the bar-room in an intoxicated condition, among whom was one Edward H. Carr. Carr was called as a witness by the defendant, and denied that he was...