Commonwealth v. Galligan
| Decision Date | 25 November 1891 |
| Citation | 155 Mass. 54,28 N.E. 1129 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. GALLIGAN et al., (two cases.) SAME v. TABER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from superior court, Bristol county; JOHN W. HAMMOND, Judge.
Separate indictments by the commonwealth against Annie E. Galligan, Barney F. Galligan, and James C. Taber, charged with maintaining a liquor nuisance. Verdict of guilty in each case, and judgment affirmed.
A.E. Pillsbury, Atty. Gen., and George C. Travis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
J. & R.C. Brown, L.E. White, and D.F. Buckley, for defendants.
In each of these indictments a count for keeping and maintaining a liquor nuisance is joined with counts charging single illegal sales of intoxicatingliquor. In the first two cases the defendants, before the jury was impaneled, asked the court to rule that there was a misjoinder of counts; that the counts for single sales could not be joined with the first count; and that the four counts could not be tried together. After the evidence was closed the defendant renewed his objections, and asked the court to rule that, even if the evidence was sufficient to prove all of the counts, the commonwealth could not have a verdict on them all, but only on the first count, or on the other counts for the single sales. In the last case the defendant requested the court to rule that the commonwealth must elect on what count or counts it would proceed to trial, claiming that the keeping of a liquor nuisance and the making of single illegal sales of liquor were not similar offenses, nor of the same general nature, and could not be joined in the same indictment. Neither indictment contained an averment that the different counts were different descriptions of the same act. It is well settled in this commonwealth that counts for distinct substantive offenses may be joined in one indictment, when the offenses charged are of the same general nature, and the mode of trial and the nature of the punishment are the same. Carlton v. Com., 5 Metc. (Mass.) 532, 534; Com. v. Jacobs, 152 Mass. 276, 281, 25 N.E.Rep. 463. The keeping of a liquor nuisance and the making of illegal sales of intoxicating liquor are, in a fair sense, of the same general nature, are tried in the same mode, and are punished in the same way. It is not the specific, but the general, nature of the offenses charged which determines whether they may be included in one indictment. The fact that upon the counts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Madison
......*650Commonwealth v. Galligan, 155 Mass. 54, 28 N. E. 1129;Gallagher v. People, 211 Ill. 158, 71 N. E. 842. In the former case it was held by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, ...De Tastet, 4 Campb. 10; Robson v. Alexander, 1 Moore & P. 448. In this country the question certainly arose as early as 1841. Commonwealth v. Dana, 2 Metc. (Mass.) 329. There it was insisted that the issuing of a warrant authorizing a search of the premises of the accused, who was ......
-
State v. Madison
...... jury from the main question involved in the case. [122 N.W. 650] . . Commonwealth. v. Galligan, 155 Mass. 54, 28 N.E. 1129; Gallagher. v. People, 211 Ill. 158, 71 N.E. 842. In the former case. it was held by the Supreme Court of ......
-
State v. Kimmell
...128 Mo. App. 48, 106 S. W. 585; Holden v. Railroad Co., 135 S. W. 507; State v. Madison, 23 S. D. 584, 122 N. W. 647; Commonwealth v. Galligan, 155 Mass. 54, 28 N. E. 1129; Gallagher v. People, 211 Ill. 158, 71 N. E. Witnesses were also put upon the stand by the state in rebuttal, and testi......
-
State v. Madison
...jury a collateral issue which would tend to divert the minds of the jury from the main question involved in the case. Commonwealth v. Galligan, 155 Mass. 54, 28 N.E. 1129; Gallagher v. People, 211 Ill. 158, 71 N.E. 842. In the former case it was held by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, a......