Commonwealth v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 22 October 1880 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. James F. Matthews |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Worcester. Complaint, under the St. of 1875, c. 99, to the First District Court of Eastern Worcester, charging the defendant, on March 9, 1880, at Westborough, with unlawfully keeping intoxicating liquors, with intent to sell the same unlawfully.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., the government put in the evidence of L. J. Elwell, a deputy sheriff, who testified that he seized, on March 8, 1880, a quantity of beer in a cask in the defendant's place of business which was a grocery and saloon in Westborough, in which place was a beer-pump, bar and other saloon fixtures; and also the testimony of a chemist, who analyzed the sample of beer seized by Elwell, that the beer contained six per cent of alcohol and was larger beer. J. W. Fairbanks, a witness for the government, testified that the defendant, on May 24 1880, testified in court that he had some intoxicating liquor at his store some six weeks or two months before, and that he then conveyed the same to his house. This evidence was admitted against the defendant's exception. The district attorney, against the defendant's objection, was then allowed to ask the witness if the defendant at this time said anything about having the liquor in question in connection with the trial of this case before the magistrate, on or about March 15, 1880; to which the witness, against the defendant's objection, answered that the defendant said he had it when he went out of business, which was a week or ten days after the complaint.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
W. A. Gile, for the defendant.
G. Marston, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
It appears from the bill of exceptions that there was evidence which tended to show that the defendant's place of business was a grocery and saloon, furnished with a beer-pump, a bar and other saloon fixtures, and that intoxicating liquors were found there on the day before the filing of this complaint. We see no ground on which the defendant could object to proof that on the 24th day of May last, in court, he testified that he had intoxicating liquor at his shop some six weeks or two months before that date and that he then conveyed it to his house. The prosecuting officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Patalano
...the presiding judge.’ Commonwealth v. Finnerty, 148 Mass. 162, 166, 19 N. E. 215, 217;Commonwealth v. Carney, 108 Mass. 417;Commonwealth v. Matthews, 129 Mass. 487;Commonwealth v. Carney, 152 Mass. 566, 26 N. E. 94. There is nothing inconsistent with this principle in Commonwealth v. Runge,......
- Commonwealth v. Matthews
-
Commonwealth v. Carney
...place on October 8th was admissible to show the intent with which liquors were kept during the time included in the complaint. Com. v. Matthews, 129 Mass. 487. overruled. ...
-
Wood v. State
...made. When there is evidence tending to show a continuous business, it is proper to show the general course of the business. Com. v. Matthews, 129 Mass. 487;Com. v. Kennedy, 97 Mass. 224;State v. Colston, 53 N. H. 483. There was no error in admitting this testimony. Another cause for a new ......