Commonwealth v. Brown
| Decision Date | 25 March 1878 |
| Citation | 124 Mass. 318 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. George T. Brown |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 7, 1877
Essex. Complaint on the Gen. Sts. c. 87, §§ 6, 7, for keeping and maintaining on August 31, 1877, and on divers other days between that day and the date of the complaint, a certain tenement in Haverhill, used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors, the same being a common nuisance.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., one Palmer, a police officer of Haverhill, called as a witness for the government, testified that he went into the defendant's shop on August 31, and saw the defendant behind the bar or counter, and another person standing in front of the bar; and testified generally as to the appearance of the shop or bar-room, and as to what took place there on that day. The district attorney then asked the witness if he saw a license hanging upon the wall of the bar-room, and he answered that he did. He was then asked what the license was, to whom it was made out, and what was its date. The defendant objected to the admission of this evidence, and contended that it was an attempt to show by parol the contents of a written instrument; and that the fact that the defendant was licensed to sell intoxicating liquors could only be proved by the record of such license. But the judge overruled the objection; and the witness testified that the license hanging upon the wall was a United States license to the defendant to sell intoxicating liquors, that it acknowledged the receipt of twenty-five dollars from the defendant, and was dated in the year 1877, but the witness could not state the month. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
B. F Brickett, (W. S. Knox with him,) for the defendant.
C. R Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
The written paper in question was hanging upon the wall, and there was no physical difficulty in producing it in court. But it was not a contract, or record; nor was it admitted as a written instrument capable of conveying any property or right to the defendant. It was not even offered for the purpose of proving that he had procured a United States license in fact, but that he professed to have done so. As a part of the description of the place, and of the manner in which it was fitted up, the witnesses might lawfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co. v. Kilpatrick
...provable by parol. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 85; 19 Ill. 510; 28 Ga. 111; 49 S.W. 975; 1 Rice, Ev. 420; 11 Ex. 133; 39 Am. Dec. 39; 99 Mass. 542; 124 Mass. 318; 11 St. 737; Whart. Cr. Ev. 163-8; 39 S.W. 203. Appellant waived all objection on this point by first entering into proof of the matter. Thom......
-
Commonwealth v. Proia
...without producing the original paper or document, or accounting for its loss or unavoidable absence." Id. Likewise, in Commonwealth v. Brown, 124 Mass. 318, 319 (1878), the Supreme Judicial Court held that the writing observed by the witness on a license hanging on the wall of a liquor deal......
-
Davidson v. State
...original indictment is in existence. This same holding was later affirmed in 1887 in State v. Herron, 86 Tenn. 442, 7 S.W. 37. In the Brown case, supra, the Court used some language which is applicable to the situation 'The statute requiring indictments in the cases of felony to be spread u......
-
Commonwealth v. Stevens
... ... sales were not offered in evidence, and the precise words ... written in the register were not in question. It has been ... held that the language of a license hanging on the wall of a ... liquor dealer's shop may be testified to orally. Com ... v. Brown, 124 Mass. 318. This decision does not cover ... the case at bar; but there is some ground for contending that ... the number of sales found recorded in the register should be ... considered as a fact in the mode of conducting the ... defendant's business, to be observed by a police officer ... ...