Commonwealth v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 07 January 1885 |
| Citation | 138 Mass. 498 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Robert Patterson |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 24, 1884.
Middlesex.
Complaint to the Third District Court of Eastern Middlesex, for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a certain tenement in Cambridge, used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors, on January 1, 1884, and on divers other days and times between that day and May 8, 1884. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
The government introduced evidence tending to show that, on April 23, 1884, the defendant was the proprietor of a saloon in Cambridge, and sold in his saloon, where he held a license of the first class to sell liquors to be drunk on the premises one pint of ale to a man; that the same was put into a pitcher by the defendant and carried away by the man; that on April 30, 1884, the defendant sold in his saloon one pint of beer to a boy thirteen years old; and that the same was put into a can by the defendant and carried away by the boy.
The defendant introduced evidence tending to contradict that of the government; and also to show that he had a common victualler's license on said premises.
The defendant asked the judge to instruct the jury, that if the defendant had a license to keep and sell intoxicating liquors during the entire period covered by the complaint in the tenement mentioned therein, the verdict must be not guilty that if the defendant simply kept the place for the purpose of making illegal sales of intoxicating liquors, the verdict must be not guilty, unless it was proved that he made illegal sales therein; that if the defendant had a license to sell intoxicating liquors in the tenement mentioned in the complaint, he could not be convicted of keeping a tenement used for the illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors during the time covered by his license; and that, if the defendant had a license to sell intoxicating liquors in the tenement mentioned in the complaint, he could not be found guilty under this complaint for not complying with the terms of said license.
The judge declined to instruct the jury as requested; and instructed them that, if the defendant was the proprietor of the saloon in question, and sold the ale and beer, or either of them, not to be drunk on the premises, as the evidence tended to show, or if they found that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Smith
... ... Stanley, 84 Me. 555, 24 A. 983, 984), or some decree of ... continuity or permanence. Com. v. Patterson, 138 ... Mass. 498, 500. See, also, 8 Words and Phrases, First Series, ... p. 7228. We think that this was more probably the meaning ... intended ... ...
-
Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. City of Lowell
...permanence. Sullivan v. Sheehan, 173 Mass. 361, 364, 53 N. E. 902;Roberts v. Lynn Ice Co., 187 Mass. 402, 407, 73 N. E. 523;Commonwealth v. Patterson, 138 Mass. 498;Commonwealth v. Osborn Mill, 130 Mass. 33;Commonwealth v. Riley, 210 Mass. 387, 392, 97 N. E. 367, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 388;Danovi......
-
State v. Bernweiser
... ... National Prohibition Act, are consistent with the holdings in ... cases under somewhat similar state statutes. Commonwealth ... v. McArty, 11 Gray 456; Commonwealth v ... Patterson, 138 Mass. 498; State v. Stanley, 84 ... Me. 555, 24 A. 983; City of Salina v. Laughlin, ... ...
-
Com. v. Reid
...when discussing the crime, although the statute penalizes one who "keeps or maintains" a common nuisance. See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 138 Mass. 498, 500 (1885). The phrases are often used interchangeably. See Commonwealth v. Tryon, 99 Mass. 442, 444 7. It does, of course, support convict......