Commonwealth v. Collier
| Citation | 134 Mass. 203 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Rebecca Collier |
| Decision Date | 15 January 1883 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Suffolk. Complaint to the Municipal Court of Boston, charging the defendant, on July 20, 1882, at Boston, with an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. Trial in the Superior Court before Mason, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
It appeared in evidence that the defendant kept a restaurant and saloon on Motte Street, in Boston; that said saloon was fitted up with a bar, beer-pump, glasses and bottles; that on the exterior wall was the sign, "Ale and Lager Beer;" that, at the time of the alleged sale, the defendant had no license to sell malt, spirituous or intoxicating liquors, but that she had previously had a license.
One Barker, a witness called by the government, testified that on July 20, 1882, he, in company with one Ellis, visited the place of business of the defendant, and while there heard an unknown man call for beer; that he saw the defendant draw from a beer-pump a liquid resembling lager beer and deliver it to the unknown man, who paid for the same; that the witness called for lager beer, and the defendant drew a glass of beer from the same pump and delivered it to the witness that the witness tasted it, and that it was lager beer. On cross-examination, the witness testified that he determined that the beer delivered to him was lager beer by the taste and the color; that Bavarian hop beer was darker in color than lager beer; that, by the taste and alone, he could tell whether any given sample of beer contained three per cent of alcohol, or more or less than three per cent of alcohol. Ellis corroborated Barker as to the sale of the beer and its appearance, but did not taste the same.
The defendant testified that she had previously had a license to sell intoxicating liquors for her said saloon; that the interior arrangements of the saloon and the sign on the exterior were the same on the 20th of July as they were when she had her license; that, at the time of the alleged sale she had no spirituous or intoxicating liquor on or about her premises; that the only beer she had on draught, or otherwise, was Bavarian hop beer; and that she bought all of her beer of one Stanley, a brewer; and the defendant produced and identified a label as the label which was on the barrel from which said alleged lager beer was drawn. The label was offered in evidence for the purpose of identifying the barrel and its contents, but was excluded by the judge; and the defendant excepted.
Stanley testified that he was a brewer, and had been engaged in the business of brewing ale, lager beer and Bavarian hop beer for the ten years last past, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Clark
...held admissible to prove, e.g., the resident port of a ship (Stearns v. Doe, 12 Gray 482); the source of beer in a barrel (Commonwealth v. Collier, 134 Mass. 203); the contents of a box (Kennedy v. State, 182 Ala. 10, 17--18, 62 So. 49); and the contents of a package (State v. Lizotte, 230 ......
-
Tyrrell-Combest Realty Co. v. Adams
...experienced in the manufacture and taste of beer, could not testify as to the amount of alcohol in the beer by tasting same. Commonwealth v. Collier, 134 Mass. 203. That in an action for polluting a stream a nonexpert witness could not give his opinion as to whether the alleged pollution ma......
-
Commonwealth v. POWELL
...'the truth of any statement' it is not hearsay. Commonwealth v. Ramirez, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 224, 227 (2002). See Commonwealth v. Collier, 134 Mass. 203, 205-206 (1883) (label offered to establish basis for expert witness testimony not hearsay); Commonwealth v. Clark, 363 Mass 467, 471 (1973)......
- Commonwealth v. Ismahl