Commonwealth v. Martin
| Decision Date | 28 November 1894 |
| Citation | 38 N.E. 708,162 Mass. 402 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. MARTIN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
From the exceptions it appears that the room which defendant occupied was a part of a larger room belonging to his landlord, and was separated from the rest of the room by a board partition. Defendant's room could be entered only by one door, which led into the remainder of the room, which was occupied in common by defendant and his landlord. The part occupied in common by defendant and his landlord was used as a passageway, and had two doors of entrance. In order to enter defendant's room, it was first necessary to enter the part of the room occupied in common by defendant and his landlord. On January 14, 1894, which was Sunday, at about 9 o'clock in the morning, police officers with a warrant went to defendant's premises. The two doors leading into the passageway occupied in common by defendant and his landlord were locked. One of those doors, which up to the time of defendant's tenancy was kept fastened by an ordinary latch with a piece of wood inserted over it, was found to be fastened on the inside with two bolts,--one at the upper and one at the lower part of the door,--and by a spring lock, the bolt of which was tied by a wire to a nail inserted in the adjoining wall in such a way that the bolt could not be moved. These bolts and the spring lock were not on the door until after defendant occupied his room, and were not put on the door by the landlord. In the room occupied by defendant, which was locked, there were found, in a dry-goods box and in a leather bag, 37 full bottles of lager beer; in various places in the room there were found a tunnel corkscrew, three bottles known as "smugglers," each smelling of whisky; a four-gallon jug full of whisky, another four-gallon jug containing about a quart of whisky, 73 empty lager-beer bottles, and two tags found near by the jugs of whisky, but not attached to them. On one side of these tags defendant's name was written, and on the outer side was printed, "Munroe & Co., 72 Broad St., Boston." The jug which was full of whisky was sealed with sealing wax, and stamped on the sealing wax was the name, "Munroe & Co 72 Broad St., Boston." The lager-beer bottles in the dry-goods case were in straw, and the partly-empty jug of whisky was under a bench, covered with paper. The room occupied in common by the defendant and his landlord contained an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Kozlowsky
...470, 20 N. E. 101;Commonwealth v. Shea, 160 Mass. 6, 35 N. E. 83;Commonwealth v. Lyons, 160 Mass. 174, 35 N. E. 312;Commonwealth v. Martin, 162 Mass. 402, 38 N. E. 708;Commonwealth v. Foster, 182 Mass. 276, 65 N. E. 391. The case at bar is distinguishable from Commonwealth v. Intoxicating L......
-
Commonwealth v. Zaidon
...defendant could not rightly have been directed on such evidence. Commonwealth v. Hurley, 158 Mass. 159, 33 N. E. 342;Commonwealth v. Martin, 162 Mass. 402, 38 N. E. 708;Commonwealth v. Meskill, 165 Mass. 142, 42 N. E. 562;Commonwealth v. Kozlowsky, 243 Mass. 538, 138 N. E. 14;Commonwealth v......
-
Commonwealth v. Kozlowsky
... ... 24 , 26. Commonwealth v ... McCluskey, supra. Commonwealth v. Downey, 148 Mass ... 14 ... Commonwealth v. Gillon, 148 Mass. 15 ... Commonwealth v. Keenan, 148 Mass. 470 ... Commonwealth v. Shea, 160 Mass. 6 ... Commonwealth V ... Lyons, 160 Mass. 174 ... Commonwealth v. Martin, 162 ... Mass. 402 ... Commonwealth v. Foster, 182 Mass. 276 ... The case at bar is ... distinguishable from Commonwealth v. Intoxicating ... Liquors, 105 Mass. 595 ... The exception to ... the admission of the question to the officer who searched the ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Ahern
...rights, and the jury must have been satisfied that the defendant kept the liquors with the intent of making illegal sales. Commonwealth v. Martin, 162 Mass. 402 . The judge for reasons previously stated could not given the first request that on all the evidence the defendant was entitled to......