Commonwealth v. Henderson

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

140 Mass. 303

5 N.E. 832

Commonwealth v. James Henderson

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

November 28, 1885

Argued November 23, 1885

Suffolk.

Complaint to the Municipal Court of Boston, alleging that the defendant, on September 5, 1885, at Boston, unlawfully exposed and kept for sale intoxicating liquors, with intent unlawfully to sell the same in this Commonwealth, he not having any license, authority, or appointment, according to law, then and there to expose, keep for sale, or sell said liquors.

In the Superior Court, the defendant filed a motion to quash the complaint, on the ground that it was insufficient. Pitman J., overruled the motion; and the defendant excepted.

At the trial it appeared that the complainant entered the premises of the defendant, at the time alleged in the complaint, by virtue of a search-warrant, which directed the search of a building on "Gouch Place," but that the officer searched a dance-hall on Gouch Street Place, and also a shed in the yard of said building, in which was a chest; and that in that chest, which had a cover and was shut, was found a small quantity of liquor.

The defendant requested the judge to instruct the jury as follows: "If the officer entered the premises under and by virtue of a search-warrant, that warrant must be produced the officer could only search the premises therein described and no liquors found in any other place could be seized or now offered in evidence by the government in this case." The judge declined so to do.

William H. Hanscom, a police officer, testified for the government, that he went to the premises in question on the night of September 3, 1885, and saw the defendant there calling off dances; that there were colored and white persons there dancing; and that, while they were dancing, the defendant called, "Promenade to bar;" and that he there saw lager beer and wine served to them. This testimony was admitted, against the defendant's exception.

There was evidence of the admission of the defendant that he was the proprietor of the place, and other evidence was offered material to the issue.

The defendant requested the judge to instruct the jury as follows: "The government must affirmatively, and beyond legal doubt, prove that there was an exposure and keeping of liquors for sale by somebody. Exposure means an exhibition and showing of the liquors, as contradistinguished from a concealment and non-exposure;...