Commonwealth v. Lattinville

• Decision Date: 06 May 1876
• Citation: 120 Mass. 385
• Parties: Commonwealth v. John Lattinville
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

120 Mass. 385

Commonwealth v. John Lattinville

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

May 6, 1876

Middlesex. Complaint under the St. of 1875, c. 99, § 6, cl. 4 alleging that the defendant, at a time and place named "did sell intoxicating liquor to one Fanny Stewart, she the said Fanny Stewart being then and there under twenty-one years of age." Trial in the Superior Court, before Lord J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The evidence offered by the government showed that Fanny Stewart a minor, was sent by her mother, an adult, who furnished her with money for the purpose, to the defendant's saloon to buy intoxicating liquor for the mother's use, and found a boy there, who sold the intoxicating liquor to her, and received the money for the same. The defendant was away at the time and knew nothing of the sale. The judge ruled, for the purposes of the trial, that such sale was a sale to a minor, although she was sent by her mother to make the purchase, and the liquor purchased was for her mother. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

E. F. Johnson, for the defendant.

C. R. Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Lord J. Ames & Devens, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Lord, J.

The complaint in this case does not allege that the defendant was unlicensed as a seller of intoxicating liquors. It is therefore to be presumed that he was licensed to sell generally as provided by law.

The statute, however, prohibits the sale or delivery of intoxicating liquors to a minor. St. 1875, c. 99 § 6, cl. 4. The precise question in this case is, whether the sale or delivery of intoxicating liquor to a minor, who is simply doing an errand for another, or, as this case finds, for his parent, is within the prohibition. The court are all of opinion that it is not. Under previous laws an unlicensed sale was prohibited, irrespectively of the person to whom made; and this court held that a sale made to the agent of another, when the agency was undisclosed, might be alleged to be a sale to the agent. Commonwealth v. Very, 12 Gray 124. The sale was a prohibited sale. It was necessary to name the purchaser, not to give character to the act, but for the purposes of identification, that the defendant might know at the trial what charge he was to meet, and that afterwards if necessary he might be able to plead a former conviction or...