Commonwealth v. Lutton
| Decision Date | 23 November 1892 |
| Citation | 32 N.E. 348,157 Mass. 392 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. LUTTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C.N. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
J.A. McGeough, for defendant.
The complaint does not refer to any statute except in the most general terms. The defendant contends, and the government concedes, that it is based upon Pub.St. c. 68, § 16. The statute of 1886 (chapter 317, § 4) requires that every person who conveys oleomargarine or butterine, in carriages or otherwise, for the purpose of selling the same in any city or town, shall be licensed by the inspectors of milk of such city or town to sell the same within the limits thereof. But the remainder of the section makes it clear that it was intended to apply only to sales from carriages or other vehicles. As the present complaint has no allegation that the defendant carried or exposed the articles in a carriage or other vehicle, it could not be sustained as a complaint under St.1886, c. 317, § 4, and we consider it as based upon Pub.St. c. 68, § 16. So considered, it cannot be sustained. Oleomargarine and butterine are "provisions." The word includes all articles of food. The articles with which it is charged the defendant went about, and exposed and sold, are therefore included among those which any person may go about selling or exposing for sale under the authority of Id. c. 68, § 1, and the acts charged are not prohibited by Id. c. 68, § 16. The complaint, therefore, alleges no offense, and the defendant cannot be convicted under it. His bill of exceptions is inartificially drawn, but we construe it as intended to raise the question here decided. See Com. v. Washburn, 128 Mass. 421. Exceptions sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Caldwell
...190 Mass. 355 76 N.E. 955 COMMONWEALTH v. CALDWELL. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.February 28, 1906 ... COUNSEL ... [190 Mass. 356] ... they are not. The word 'provisions' as here used has ... been held to mean, 'food, victuals, fare and ... provender.' Com. v. Lutton, 157 Mass. 392, 32 ... N.E. 348; Com. v. Reid, 175 Mass. 325, 56 N.E. 617 ... Tea and coffee are not used as food, in the form in which ... they ... ...
-
Harkey v. State
...license. No analysis worth mentioning appears in the opinion in that case, which seems to be decided on the authority of Com. v. Lutton, 157 Mass. 392, 32 N. E. 348, and Com. v. Reid, 175 Mass. 325, 56 N. E. 617. Neither case is authority for the holding in the Caldwell Case. In the Lutton ......
- Smith v. Smith
- Smith v. Smith