Commonwealth v. Moylan
| Decision Date | 18 November 1875 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Mary Moylan |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Essex. Complaint under the St. of 1875, c. 99, for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors on September 16, 1875, to Margaret Monarch. Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
The government introduced testimony tending to show that a sale of intoxicating liquor was made to said Monarch.
The defendant relied upon a license of the first class, mentioned in the St. of 1875, c. 99, § 7, issued by the mayor and board of aldermen of the city of Salem, dated May 3, 1875 and authorizing the defendant to sell all kinds of intoxicating liquors at the building where said sale was alleged to have been made to said Monarch, until May 1, 1876.
The government then introduced the record of the board of aldermen of the city of Salem, as follows:
Parol evidence was offered by the government, tending to show that the defendant had an opportunity to be heard and was heard upon a charge of having sold liquor on the Lord's day before the committee on licenses of the board of aldermen of the city of Salem, and upon the question of the revocation of said license. The defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence; but the judge admitted it, and the defendant excepted.
It was not contended on the part of the government that the sale to Margaret Monarch was in violation of any of the conditions of the license.
The defendant then requested the judge to rule that no revocation of the license was proved; but the judge refused so to rule, and instructed the jury that the evidence introduced was competent in law to show a revocation of the license. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions sustained.
H. B Moulton, for the defendant.
C. R Train, Attorney General, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higgins v. Bd. of License Comm'rs of Quincy
...482, 26 N.E.2d 304. The statute does not enumerate the specific grounds upon which the power of revocation may be exercised, Commonwealth v. Moylan, 119 Mass. 109;Commonwealth v. Hamer, 128 Mass. 76, but authorized in general terms a revocation for cause. Consequently, a revocation cannot b......
-
Fallon v. Bd. of St. Com'rs of Boston
...action by the licensing authorities is not justified by the statute nor consistent with natural justice or fair play. Commonwealth v. Moylan, 119 Mass. 109;General Baking Co. v. Board of Street Commissioners of Boston, 242 Mass. 194, 136 N.E. 245;Sweeney v. School Committee of Revere, 249 M......
-
Higgins v. Board of License Com'rs of City of Quincy
... ... revocation which, if exercised in compliance with the ... statute, would give him no just ground of complaint ... Commonwealth v. Kinsely, 133 Mass. 578 ... Union ... Institution for Savings v. Boston, 224 Mass. 286 ... Burgess v. Mayor & Aldermen of Brockton, 235 Mass. 95 ... Moylan, ... 119 Mass. 109; Commonwealth v. Hamer, 128 Mass. 76; ... but authorized in general terms a revocation for cause ... Consequently, a ... ...
-
Fallon v. Board of Street Com'rs of Boston
... ... not attach and run with the land until the privilege ... conferred had been exercised. Hanley v. Cook, 245 ... Mass. 563 ... Commonwealth v. Willcutt, 259 Mass. 406 ... Saxe v. Street Commissioners of Boston, 307 Mass ... A license granted ... under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) ... authorities is not justified by the statute nor consistent ... with natural justice or fair play. Commonwealth v ... Moylan, 119 Mass. 109 ... General Baking Co. v. Street ... Commissioners of Boston, 242 Mass. 194 ... Sweeney v ... School Committee of Revere, 249 Mass. 525 ... ...