Commonwealth v. Boutwell
| Decision Date | 18 October 1894 |
| Citation | 162 Mass. 230,38 N.E. 441 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. BOUTWELL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
F.A. Gaskill, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Charles F. Baker, for defendant.
The only exceptions in this case are to the refusal of the presiding justice to give an instruction requested after the close of the charge to the jury, and to the reasons given for refusing the instruction, and to the ruling made in that connection. The defendant was an apothecary, and upon a search of his premises, on August 4, 1894, intoxicating liquors were found in sundry bottles. There was also other evidence tending to show that the liquors were kept for unlawful sale. The judge gave general instructions "applicable to the case, and not objected to," and told the jury that the defendant, as a druggist and apothecary, had a right "to have in his possession intoxicating liquors in any quantity to be used solely for the purpose of mixing and combining with other ingredients as a medicine, and that the only question for the jury was to decide whether the liquors found in defendant's possession were so kept by him solely for the purpose of combining with other ingredients as a medicine, or were kept to be sold in violation of law; that, if they should find that they were so kept solely for combining with other ingredients as a medicine, the jury should return a verdict of not guilty, but that, if they should find that they were kept for sale, they should bring in a verdict of guilty." Under the instructions, the jury could not find the defendant guilty unless they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the liquors were kept for sale. So far as appears, there was no evidence which called for any other instructions. The defendant did not testify, and there was nothing to show that any part of the liquors was on hand previous to May 1st as a part of his stock, when he held the license to sell for medicinal, mechanical, and chemical purposes. His statement to that effect at the time of the seizure was not evidence in his favor. But, if the liquors were a part of his former stock, there was no testimony that he was keeping them there at the time of the seizure for any other purpose than either to sell or to use in combination with other ingredients as a medicine. We are of opinion that the charge as given was appropriate to the case, and that the judge was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial