Commonwealth v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 14 September 1874
• Citation: 116 Mass. 8
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Charles G. Shaw. Same v. Arthur R. Kane. Same v. Robert Sheehey
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

116 Mass. 8

Commonwealth v. Charles G. Shaw. Same v. Arthur R. Kane. Same v. Robert Sheehey

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

September 14, 1874

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Hampshire. Three complaints on the St. of 1869, c. 415, § 36, for keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same in violation of law.

The first complaint charged the offence to have been committed on July 3, 1873, at Northampton.

At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Dewey, J., Elijah N. Sampson, a state constable, testified as follows: "On July 3, 1873, I took a search-warrant to search the premises of Michael Connor, opposite the Fitch Hotel; passed in through the front door into the bar room, and found the defendant and another man. On looking the bar over, found four small tumblers on a drainer, which smelt of liquor, and some sugar there in a drawer and a spoon in it, and all the implements for carrying on the trade." The witness being directed to state what he found, said he found a pail for rinsing; "searched the cellar, and found on the cellar wall on the back stairs six bottles, four contained whiskey and two of them gin; that was all the liquor found. A door opened from the bar room into the cellar. There was a regular bar there, and beer tumblers; no other business in that room, unless a few cigars on the shelf. There are two front rooms; front room used for sale of tobacco, cigars, nuts; never knew of any oysters sold there. Two rooms in front, two doors, doors out of both rooms into the bar room. Joseph Kneeland was there with the defendant when I first went in. Have known the defendant at that place ever since I was appointed on the force, which was a year ago last June; Kneeland does not belong there. The defendant made this remark, that if I was as good to search other places as I was here I should find more liquor." On cross-examination, the witness testified that he returned these six bottles found on July 3, on the search-warrant, as the liquors of Michael Connor, and they were forfeited, no one claiming the same. On reexamination, the witness testified that the sign over the door was Shaw & Connor.

The defendant asked the presiding judge to rule that there was no evidence that the defendant owned or kept the liquor found there on July 3, or that he knew it was there. The presiding judge refused so to rule, but submitted the case to the jury under proper instructions. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.

The second complaint charged the commission of the offence at Ware on September 3, 1873.

At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Dewey, J William E. Lewis testified for the government as follows: "I know the defendant. He lived in Ware, in a house in the rear of Main Street, a house known as the 'Old Barn.' I went on September 3, 1873, into his place with a search-warrant; part of his place is used for a tailor's shop. I had a search-warrant; I went in and found him upstairs; he came down as I went in. I told him what I had; he said, 'All right, look around.' As he came down he had a tunnel and measure in his hand. I looked around, and found over the sink in the kitchen several measures, some two or three measures, two tunnels. On that I went down into his cellar. I found in the cellar underneath his kitchen, buried in the ground, three jugs, buried, close by them, another three gallon jug, very nearly full; the jugs contained gin and whiskey. The way to get into this cellar was from the outside on the west side of the tenement occupied by the defendant as a dwelling-house. This cellar had been in disuse for quite a while, on a former occasion I tried to get in. I did not have any words with the defendant at that time; afterwards he said it must be some that Webb left when he got through. This was a man who lived on the premises a year or two before. He said he thought he could tell me who it was that told me. The path leading into this cellar was from his back door; it had the appearance of being used. There were footmarks on the cellar bottom leading from this outer door leading from these premises. The defendant's cellar is not used in common by any one; not gone over by any other parties except by...