Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxicating Liquors
| Decision Date | 22 October 1885 |
| Citation | 3 N.E. 4,140 Mass. 287 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxicating Liquors, Patrick H. Morrison, claimant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Complaint on the Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 30, to the Second District Court of Eastern Worcester, alleging that, on August 8, 1884 certain intoxicating liquors were kept and deposited by Patrick H. Morrison in a certain building in Clinton, with intent to sell the same unlawfully in this Commonwealth; and praying for a warrant to search said premises. In the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., said Morrison appeared and claimed the liquors seized under the warrant issued upon the complaint. The jury found against the claimant; and he alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
Exceptions sustained.
J. W Corcoran & H. Parker, for the claimant.
E. J Sherman, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
OPINION
Devens J.
The complaint and warrant described the premises to be searched as "a certain building, the cellar under the same, and the outbuildings within the curtilage thereof, situate on the southwest corner of Grove and Beacon streets, so called, in said Clinton, and occupied by said Patrick H. Morrison as a store, dwelling-house, and place of common resort kept therein."
The premises actually searched consisted of a basement under a building at the corner of Grove and Beacon streets, a covered passageway, by which access was had to a basement under another building, and the latter basement. These buildings were conveniently known at the trial as A and B, and it was in the basement of the latter that the liquors claimed were seized. A small quantity was seized, which was found in the passageway; but we do not understand that this is here in controversy. If so, the description of the premises would be clearly sufficient to include this passageway, and would justify the seizure of the liquors there found, as this was certainly an outbuilding immediately connected with the building A.
It was ruled at the trial that "the complaint and warrant covered both of said buildings." The correctness of this ruling depends on the inquiry whether these buildings could be held to be so connected and identified each with the other as legally to constitute but one, or whether the building called B could be held, by legal intendment, from its nature,...
To continue reading
Request your trial