Commonwealth v. Hoar

• Decision Date: 02 December 1876
• Citation: 121 Mass. 375
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Ezra J. Hoar
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

121 Mass. 375

Commonwealth v. Ezra J. Hoar

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

December 2, 1876

Suffolk. Complaint under the St. of 1875, c. 99, to the "Municipal Court of the Brighton District of the city of Boston, holden in said Brighton District for the transaction of criminal business, within and for the county of Suffolk," charging that the defendant "within the judicial district of said court, unlawfully did expose and keep for sale intoxicating liquors, with intent unlawfully to sell the same within this Commonwealth." In the Municipal Court the defendant moved to quash the complaint on the following grounds:

"1. Said complaint contains the legal designation of no court known to the law of this Commonwealth, and appears, by inspection, to have been made, sworn to, acted upon and prosecuted in no legal tribunal existing within the territorial district limits of this county or Commonwealth. 2. By the St. of 1874, c. 271, § 14, a court was established for the territory comprised in what was then Ward 19, of the city of Boston, otherwise described as the Brighton District; whereas this complaint sets forth that it was made and sworn to in the Municipal Court of the Brighton District of the city of Boston, holden in said Brighton District for the transaction of criminal business, within and for the county of Suffolk; and not that the court was holden in said Brighton District for the transaction of criminal business, within and for said Brighton District. 3. Said complaint alleges that the offence was committed within the judicial district of said court, i. e. within the judicial district of the Municipal Court of the Brighton District of the city of Boston; which is defective, for the reasons given in preceding objections; and there being no such court in this Commonwealth as the Municipal Court of the Brighton District of the city of Boston. 4. Similar objections in all particulars apply to the record in this cause. 5. Said complaint does not allege any particular building, street or place in said Brighton District, or within the judicial district of this court, where the alleged offence was committed. 6. Said complaint alleges two offences, that is the offence of exposing and also of keeping for sale intoxicating liquors, each of which are separate offences and cannot be combined in one complaint without being set forth in separate counts. 8. Said complaint is for exposing and keeping for sale intoxicating liquors, with intent unlawfully to sell the same in this Commonwealth, which is not an offence known to the law, the addition of the 'and with intent unlawfully to sell the same in this Commonwealth,' making the complaint fatally defective. 9. Said complaint is also defective in not alleging that defendant exposed and kept said intoxicating liquors with intent unlawfully to sell the same in said Brighton District or within the judicial district of this court." ...