Commonwealth v. Bridges
| Decision Date | 26 March 1934 |
| Citation | 285 Mass. 572,189 N.E. 616 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. BRIDGES. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Criminal Court, Middlesex County; Allan G. Buttrick, Judge.
Charles Bridges was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
E. J. Bushell, of Malden, for appellant.
P. R. Foisy, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Lowell, for the Commonwealth.
The defendant was charged in a complaint which alleges that on July 17, 1933, at Medford, in the county of Middlesex, he operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 90, § 24. Upon appeal the case was tried before a jury who found the defendant guilty. The judge instructed the jury that ‘notwithstanding the fact that the defendant had been drinking 3.2 beer by weight, that if, in fact, he became perceptibly influenced thereby, he could be found guilty of the offense as charged in the complaint.’ The case is reported to this court for a determination of the question whether the court erred in giving the instruction.
G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 138, § 1, defined ‘certain non-intoxicating beverages' as This statute was amended by St. 1933, c. 97, § 1, by striking out in the fifth and sixth lines the words ‘two and three fourths per cent of alcohol by weight at sixty degrees Fahrenheit’ and inserting in place thereof the words ‘three and two tenths per cent of alcohol by weight. * * *’ It is apparent from the preamble to the act that its purpose was ‘to enable the manufacture and the preparation within the commonwealth, in conformity with the requirements of federal law, of certain alcoholic beverages the sale whereof had been made lawful by act of Congress.’ The statute has no relation to the offenses set forth in G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 90, § 24, under which this complaint was drawn. Within the intent of that statute any liquor is intoxicating which in fact is capable of subjecting a person to its alcoholic influence. See Commonwealth v. Lyseth, 250 Mass. 555, 146 N. E. 18. The statute (St. 1933, c. 97) did not amount to a warranty on the part of the commonwealth that a person might drink any quantity of such a beverage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Cass
...or cruelty." We have defined many of the terms used in G.L. c. 90, § 24, the parent statute of § 24G. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bridges, 285 Mass. 572, 189 N.E. 616 (1934) ("intoxicating liquor"); Commonwealth v. Arone, 265 Mass. 128, 163 N.E. 758 (1928) ("wilful, wanton and reckless"); Co......
-
Payne v. Kinder
...controlling the sale of such beverages and of facilitating the enforcement and collection of the license tax imposed. Commonwealth v. Bridges, 285 Mass. 572, 189 N.E. 616; Drew v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 415, 112 P.2d 429; Foglesong v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 360, 103 P.2d 106; State v. Parquette, 54 R......
-
State v. Glanzman
... ... refuse the requested instruction: State v. Taylor, ... 131 Me. 438, 163 A. 777; State v. Cormier, 141 Me ... 307, 43 A.2d 819; Com. v. Bridges, 285 Mass. 572, ... 189 N.E. 616; Daniels v. State, 155 Tenn. 549, 296 ... S.W. 20; Stewart v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 199, 299 ... S.W. 646, at page ... ...
-
State v. Miles
...Act, defines 'alcoholic liquor' 4 (emphasis supplied) for purposes of that Act, and would not be applicable. See Commonwealth v. Bridges, 285 Mass. 572, 189 N.E. 616 (1934); Douglas v. State, 93 Okl.Cr. 132, 225 P.2d 376 As far as we can determine, the question what is 'intoxicating liquor'......