Commonwealth v. Strauss
Decision Date | 19 May 1905 |
Citation | 74 N.E. 308,188 Mass. 229 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. STRAUSS. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Plymouth County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.
Abe Strauss was convicted of violating the provisions of Rev. Laws, c. 56, § 1, and brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.
Asa P. French, Dist. Atty., and Jas. S. Allen, Jr., for the commonwealth.
F. M. Bixby and Junius Parker, for defendant.
Section 1 of chapter 56 of the Revised Laws is as follows: An indictment was found against the defendant under this section, charging him, in five counts for as many different offenses, with having made it a condition of the sale of certain merchandise, to wit, the plug tobaccos of the Continental Tobacco Company, that the purchaser should not sell or deliver any of certain merchandise, to wit, the plug tobaccos of any other person, firm, or corporation, or association of persons, etc. The defendant was a salesman employed by the Continental Tobacco Company to solicit orders from purchasers, and forward them to the office of his employer, in New York City, to be filled. The evidence tended to show that he sold tobacco to the persons mentioned in the indictment as purchasers, at list prices, agreeing to give them a trade discount of 2 per cent., and, if the bill was paid within 10 days, a further cash discount of 2 per cent., and, if they handled the plug tobaccos of the Continental Tobacco Company exclusively (that is, handled and dealt in no plug tobacco made by any manufacturer other than the Continental Tobacco Company), to give them at the expiration of a stated period a further amount, equal to 6 per cent. of the amount of their purchases during such period. The defendant introduced no evidence. Various requests for instructions to the jury were made by the defendant, which we need not consider in detail. The presiding justice refused these requests, and, subject to the defendant's exception, instructed the jury as follows: ‘Upon all the evidence, if you are satisfied that the defendant, acting for the Continental Tobacco Company, offered for sale to the person or concern named in either count of the indictment the plug tobacco made by the Continental Tobacco Company upon more favorable terms if such person or concern should not sell...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Massachusetts. Practice Text
...Perfumers v. Andelman , 55 N.E.2d 209 (Mass. 1944); Butterick Publ’g Co. v. Fisher , 89 N.E. 189 (Mass. 1909); Commonwealth v. Strauss , 74 N.E. 308 (Mass. 1905). Massachusetts 24-12 This analogue to Section 3 of the Clayton Act was construed in Boyle v. Douglas Dynamics, LLC . 93 The court......