Commonwealth v. Fenton
| Decision Date | 23 March 1885 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Nathaniel W. Fenton[1] |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk.
Complaint to the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, for the violation, on June 21, 1884, of a regulation of the board of aldermen of said city, which provides that no owner, driver or other person having the care or ordering of a vehicle shall suffer the same to stop in a street of said city for more than twenty minutes.
At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Blodgett, J a police officer testified, for the government, that the defendant, on the evening of the day named in the complaint, suffered his wagon to stop by the sidewalk in a certain street about twenty-nine minutes; that during that time, and before the expiration of the first twenty minutes, the defendant started his horse and wagon along said street, by the side of said walk, a distance not quite equal to the length of the team, where it remained the balance of the twenty-nine minutes; that the wagon contained root beer, which the defendant was selling; that he was acting orderly, not collecting any crowd, nor obstructing the street, nor impeding travel, nor creating any nuisance of any kind, and claimed to be acting under a license.
The defendant testified that he was selling root beer, manufactured by himself, and was doing so under a license from the Commonwealth, and that he was conducting his business under the terms of said license. This license was dated May 23, 1884, and was for the term of one year. It authorized the defendant, in accordance with the provisions of the Pub. Sts. c. 68, to go about as a hawker or pedler in the county of Suffolk, and to expose for sale in said county certain goods, or any other goods of his own manufacture.
The judge ruled that the license was no protection to the defendant, if he allowed his wagon to remain in the same place in said street more than twenty minutes. The defendant thereupon offered to prove that it was necessary for him, for the proper and profitable prosecution of his business, to remain at times longer than twenty minutes at a time at one place. The judge ruled that this evidence was immaterial.
The defendant asked the judge to instruct the jury as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Indiana
...15 L. Ed. 269;Commonwealth v. Ellis, 158 Mass. 555, 33 N. E. 651;Commonwealth v. Lagorio, 141 Mass. 81, 6 N. E. 546;Commonwealth v. Fenton, 139 Mass. 195, 29 N. E. 653; People v. Miller, 38 Hun (N. Y.) 82. It was an acknowledged rule in this state until abrogated by express statute to punis......
-
Southern Railway Company v. Railroad Commission of Indiana
... ... Davenport (1859), 22 How. 227, 16 ... L.Ed. 243; Cooley v. Board, etc. (1851), 12 ... How. *299, 13 L.Ed. 996; Prigg v ... Commonwealth (1842), 16 Pet. *539, 10 L.Ed. 1060; ... Welton v. Missouri, supra ; ... United States, ex rel., v. Union Stock Yards, ... etc., Co ... 158 Mass. 555, 33 N.E. 651; Commonwealth v ... Lagorio (1886), 141 Mass. 81, ... [100 N.E. 344] ... 6 N.E. 546; Commonwealth v. Fenton (1885), ... 139 Mass. 195, 29 N.E. 653; People v ... Miller (1885), 38 Hun 82 ... It was ... an acknowledged rule in ... ...
-
Slome v. Godley
...another statute dealing with a different aspect of the same general matter and designed to effect a different purpose. Commonwealth v. Fenton, 139 Mass. 195, 29 N.E. 653;Commonwealth v. Haffer, 279 Mass. 73, 180 N.E. 615. If the prices are correctly stated on the signs, which do not conform......
-
Com. v. Petralia
...before the invention of the motor vehicle. See Commonwealth v. Rowe, 141 Mass. 79, 80, 6 N.E. 545 (1886) (a cab); Commonwealth v. Fenton, 139 Mass. 195, 197, 29 N.E. 653 (1885) (a wagon). In addition, the reduction of traffic congestion and air poliution and the encouragement of the use of ......