Commonwealth v. Lewandowski
| Decision Date | 27 February 1925 |
| Citation | 146 N.E. 780,251 Mass. 550 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. LEWANDOWSKI. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from District Court, Hampshire County; Dillon, Judge.
Charles Lawandowski was found guilty of keeping and maintaining a certain tenement for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquor to the common nuisance of the people, and he excepts to refusal of the court to set aside verdict and to denial of motion in arrest of judgment. Exceptions overruled.
Offenses of exposing and keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors with intent unlawfully to sell, and of keeping and maintaining a tenement used for illegal sale and keeping of intoxicating liquor, are separately punishable, under G. L. c. 138, ss 2, 86, and chapter 139, ss 14, 15, and acquittal or conviction for either does not bar conviction for the other.
Under G. L. c. 278, s 34, motion in arrest of judgment is not allowable for cause existing before verdict, unless it affects jurisdiction.
Thos. J. Hammond, Dist. Atty., of Northampton, for the commonwealth.
Daniel D. O'Brien, of Northampton, and N. Seelye Hitchcock, of Easthampton, for defendant.
The defendant was tried on two complaints which respectively charged, that on April 12, 1924, he did expose and keep for sale intoxicating liquors with intent unlawfully to sell the same, and during the 12 months next before April 26, 1924, the date of the complaint, he did keep and main a certain tenement used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping for sale of intoxicating liquor ‘to the common nuisance of the people.’ G. L. c. 138, §§ 2, 86; Id. c. 139, §§ 14, 15. See Commonwealth v. Nickerson, 236 Mass. 281, 128 N. E. 273, 10 A. L. R. 1568. The cases were tried together, and submitted to the jury under instructions to which no exceptions were taken. A verdict of not guilty was returned on the first complaint, but, having been convicted on the second complaint, the defendant moved to set aside the verdict, and that a verdict of not guilty be entered by order of court. He also filed a motion in arrest of judgment. The motions were denied and the case is here on his exceptions.
[1] It is settled, that the two offenses are not the same but are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
... ... 176, and cases cited. Moreover, the rule is not universally ... followed. Thomas v. City, 145 N.E. 550; Comm. v ... Lewandowski, 146 N.E. 780; State v. Ford (Kan.) ... 232 P. 1023; State v. Wilson, (Wash.) 227 P. 850; ... State v. Salter, (Me.) 256 S.W. 1070. The cases are ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Maguire
...a single act by a defendant might constitute different offences. Commonwealth v. McCabe, 163 Mass. 400, 40 N.E. 182;Commonwealth v. Lewandowski, 251 Mass. 550, 146 N.E. 780;Commonwealth v. Martin, 304 Mass. 320, 23 N.E.2d 876. It was settled by Commonwealth v. Jones, 288 Mass. 150, 192 N.E.......
-
Commonwealth v. Maguire
...The commission of a single act by a defendant might constitute different offences. Commonwealth v. McCabe, 163 Mass. 400 . Commonwealth v. Lewandowski, 251 Mass. 550 Commonwealth v. Martin, 304 Mass. 320 . It was settled by Commonwealth v. Jones, 288 Mass. 150 , that an acquittal upon a com......
- Whitney v. Porter