Commonwealth v. Ramsdell
| Decision Date | 05 January 1881 |
| Citation | 130 Mass. 68 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Edward L. Ramsdell |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Exceptions sustained.
G Stevens, for the defendant.
G Marston, Attorney General, & F. H. Gillett, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth, cited Commonwealth v. Kimball, 24 Pick. 366; Commonwealth v. White, 10 Met. 14; Commonwealth v. Sloan, 4 Cush. 52; Commonwealth v. Bathrick, 6 Cush. 247; Commonwealth v. Boynton, 2 Allen 160; Commonwealth v. Goodman, 97 Mass. 117; Commonwealth v. Hallett, 103 Mass. 452; Mills v. Perkins, 120 Mass. 41; St. 1878, c. 203.
This is a complaint for exposing and keeping for sale intoxicating liquors, on March 29, 1880, with intent to sell the same unlawfully. The defendant is an apothecary and druggist, having no license to sell liquors. Upon the evidence, the jury found specially that "the defendant kept the liquors only for the purpose of mixing them with other ingredients, according to prescriptions of physicians, to be used as medicine, and also for the purpose of manufacturing such compounds as are commonly used by druggists, to be sold for the purpose of being used as medicines for remedies for sickness and disease." The court instructed the jury that, if the liquors were kept and used by the defendant solely for these purposes, he was guilty; and the jury accordingly returned a verdict of guilty.
If the construction of the statute upon which these instructions are based is the correct one, then every sale, by a druggist or other person, of any medicine or compound or preparation, in which spirituous or intoxicating liquor enters as one of the ingredients, in however small a quantity, is within the prohibition of the statute. The statute forbids the sale, without due authority, of spirituous or intoxicating liquors. Such liquors are frequently used in the preparation of medicines and of articles of food. It is not a reasonable construction to hold that the statute prohibits the sale of every medicine or article of food in the preparation of which liquor is used. In order to determine whether the statute applies to a sale, the true test is to inquire whether the article sold is in reality an intoxicating liquor. If it is, the sale is illegal, although it is sold to be used as a medicine, or it is attempted to disguise it under the name of a medicine, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chipman v. People
......502, 6 So. 188; Carl v. State, 89 Ala. 93, 8. So. 156; Carson v. State, 69 Ala. 235; Com. v. Hallett, 103. Mass. 452; Com. v. Ramsdell, 130 Mass. 68; State v. Brown, 31. Me. 522. An examination of the legislation of this state upon. the regulation of the liquor traffic, in which, ......
-
Commonwealth v. Sookey
......It would be only conjecture to infer from a single sale of Jamaica ginger, without any evidence of the possibility or extent of the use of this preparation as a beverage, that the bottle was in fact sold not as a medicine, but as intoxicating liquor. Commonwealth v. Ramsdell, 130 Mass. 68;Commonwealth v. Joslin, 158 Mass. 482, 33 N. E. 653,21 L. R. A. 449. It could not be ruled as matter of law that the mere possession by a grocer or druggist of certain well-known articles ordinarily used for medical, culinary, toilet or antiseptic purposes, and containing alcohol, ......
-
Commonwealth v. Joslin
...liquors, except as authorized,” (Pub.St. c. 100, § 1,) which forbids all sales of such liquors without due authority, (Com. v. Ramsdell, 130 Mass. 68;) and retail druggists and apothecaries cannot be licensed to sell them for a beverage. Even if the general doctrine which governs such sales......
-
Commonwealth v. Woelz
...the ordinary meaning of the word. We do not assume that the Legislature used the word in any narrow or artificial sense. Com. v. Ramsdell, 130 Mass. 68;Howard v. Harris, 8 Allen, 297. The decisions to the contrary in some other states are generally based upon statutes that differ from ours.......