Commonwealth v. Hurley
| Decision Date | 28 February 1893 |
| Citation | 33 N.E. 342,158 Mass. 159 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. HURLEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Defendant was convicted in the police court at the city of Lowell, where she resided, and appealed to the superior court which was next to be held at Cambridge. When the cause came up for trial, defendant moved to continue to the next sitting, to be held three months afterwards at Lowell, which motion was denied, and defendant excepted.
Several officers testified that on Sunday morning, February 7, 1892 they went to the grocery store of defendant, found her engaged in selling groceries, for which they arrested her and took her to the police station in a wagon; that immediately after she alighted she took from her garments and threw away, a lager beer bottle, containing whisky, but which defendant denied to have been contained therein; that on the premises they found three bottles, in one of which was half a teaspoonful of whisky. Defendant testified that the officers found the bottles afterwards, on March 19, 1892, and that one of the bottles contained a little brandy, which had been left from some she had been using during sickness. There was evidence that on each of four of the Sundays in January 1892, one or two men were arrested by one of the officers for drunkenness; that the premises opened on a public street known as "Coburn Street," but no evidence was offered to show that any of the officers knew where the line of premises or of the street were; that in the immediate neighborhood were two public barrooms, from which the drunken men might have obtained their liquor; that prior to February 7, 1892, two men, and at other times persons, were seen coming from the defendant's premises partially intoxicated. Defendant testified that intoxicated persons frequently came on her premises, whom she had requested officers to remove. The court ruled that the jury might consider any evidence as to acts within 30 days prior to February 7, 1892, tending to establish the charge in the complaint. There was evidence that two of the officers who visited the premises on February 7, 1892, were inspectors, with a search warrant for intoxicating liquors. Defendant requested the court to reject their testimony, as they had no lawful right to visit the premises on the Lord's day, and were violators of the law.
C.N. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
J.F Manning, for defend...
To continue reading
Request your trial