Commonwealth v. Henderson

• Citation: 5 N.E. 832,140 Mass. 303
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. HENDERSON.
• Decision Date: 28 November 1885
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

140 Mass. 303

5 N.E. 832

COMMONWEALTH

v.HENDERSON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Filed November 28, 1885.

This was a complaint for unlawfully exposing and keeping for sale intoxicating liquors, with intent to sell the same unlawfully, in this commonwealth. A motion made by the defendant to quash was overruled. At the trial in the superior court, before PITMAN, J., it appeared that the complainant entered the premises of the defendant at the time alleged, under and by virtue of a search-warrant which directed search of a building on “Gooch place,” but the officer searched a dance-hall on “Gooch street place,” and also a shed in the yard of said building, and in a chest in said yard found a small quantity of liquor, the cover of said chest being shut. The defendant asks the court to rule that the covenant under which the search was made must be produced, and that the officer could only search the premises therein described, and that no liquors found in any other place could be seized, or offered in evidence by the government in the case. The court declined so to rule. One William H. Hanscom, a police officer, was called by the government, and, under the objection of the defendant, testified that he went to the premises stated, on the night of September 3, 1885, and saw the defendant there calling off dances; that, while the persons there were dancing the defendant called, “Promenade to bar;” and that he, witness, there saw lager and wine served to them. There was evidence of the admission of the defendant that he was proprietor of the place. The defendant asked the court to rule that “the government must affirmatively, and beyond legal doubt, prove that there was an exposure and keeping of liquors for sale by somebody; that the exposure means an exhibition and showing of the liquors, as contradistinguished from a concealment and non-exposure; that the keeping for sale means a having on sale with intent to sell for pay to others, as distinguished from a personal use, either medicinally or as a beverage for one's self, or for like use and purpose by others; and that the defendant was the one who so exposed and kept for sale the liquors there found, and put in evidence.” The court declined so to rule, but did instruct the jury that “if any part of the liquors was kept and sold, whether or not it was concealed is immaterial, it is enough. The government must prove-First, that the defendant was the proprietor of and kept the...