Commonwealth v. Doherty
| Decision Date | 22 September 1874 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Patrick Doherty |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Hampden. Complaint on the St. of 1869, c. 415, § 39, to the Police Court of Holyoke, averring that Patrick Doherty on July 20, 1873, "at said Holyoke, unlawfully did convey certain intoxicating liquors in a certain vehicle, to wit, a certain wagon, he, the said Doherty, having received said liquors from some person or persons to said complainant unknown, for the purpose of conveying the same unlawfully in said Commonwealth, said liquors being deposited and being conveyed in said vehicle by said Doherty as aforesaid to a certain person other than the said Doherty whose name to said complainants is now unknown; and said unknown person intending to sell said liquors in violation of the four hundred and fifteenth chapter of the statutes of the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-nine of said Commonwealth; and said liquors have been sold in said Commonwealth in violation of said chapter; and the said Doherty then and there having reasonable cause to believe that the said liquors have been so illegally sold and are so intended for illegal sale as aforesaid in this Commonwealth whereby said liquors have become liable to be forfeited against the peace of said Commonwealth, and the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided."
At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Dewey, J., the defendant, after the evidence was all in, asked the judge to rule that no offence was alleged in said complaint, but the judge declined so to rule, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
E. H Lathrop, for the defendant. There is no allegation in the complaint of the illegal conveyance of liquor from place to place within the Commonwealth. It is not every possible conveyance of spirituous liquor that will make either the owner or his servant guilty of a criminal offence. Commonwealth v. Waters, 11 Gray 81. In all the cases where it has been held that the objection comes too late, the objection was merely formal. Here it is to a matter of substance. The complaint sets forth no offence under the statute.
C. R Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
The complaint alleges that the defendant at Holyoke in this county unlawfully did convey certain intoxicating liquors in a wagon to another person who intended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Reid
...175 Mass. 325 56 N.E. 617 COMMONWEALTH v. REID (two cases). Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.March 1, 1900 ... COUNSEL ... [175 Mass. 328] ... complaint originally filed in an inferior court is ... insufficient in form. Pub. St. c. 214,§ 25; Com. v ... Doherty, 116 Mass. 13; Com. v. Donahoe, 130 ... Mass. 280. The complaint in the case at bar follows the ... language of Pub. St. c. 68, § 16, and ... ...
-
Wood v. State
...was filed too late. Pub. St. c. 214, § 25; Commonwealth v. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6; Commonwealth v. Blanchard, 105 Mass. 173; Commonwealth v. Doherty, 116 Mass. 13. But we do not perceive that the complaint was legally defective, even in form. It averred the keeping of intoxicating liquors with ......
-
Commonwealth v. Goulding
...late, although we do not mean to intimate that it would have fared better if it had come earlier. Pub. Sts. c. 214, § 25. See Commonwealth v. Doherty, 116 Mass. 13, cases cited. The only other objection not waived is that the possibility is not excluded that some other person might have had......
-
Com. v. Hallahan
...143 Mass. 167 9 N.E. 523 COMMONWEALTH v. HALLAHAN. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.January 4, 1887 ... COUNSEL ... [9 ... was therefore rightly overruled by the superior court ... Com. v. Legassy, 113 Mass. 10; Com. v ... Doherty ... ...