Malhoit v. Burns
| Decision Date | 18 May 1920 |
| Citation | 127 N.E. 333,235 Mass. 559 |
| Parties | MALHOIT v. BURNS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Franklin T. Hammond, Judge.
Action by Jennie M. Malhoit against John F. Burns. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Frank W. Morrison, of Worcester, for plaintiff.
S. B. Taft, of Uxbridge, and Alex. H. Bullock and John M. Thayer, both of Worcester, for defendant.
The plaintiff brings this action to recover the penalties prescribed in R. L. c. 100, § 62, for selling intoxicating liquors to her minor son, and for allowing him to loiter upon the premises where such sales were made. The declaration as amended contains eight counts, the first four alleging a sale or gift of intoxicating liquor to the minor, and the last four that he was permitted and allowed to loiter upon the premises where such sales were made. The jury found for the plaintiff on all the counts except the fourth and eighth. The defendant excepted to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in his favor on the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth counts.
The question is whether the evidence warranted a finding that the minor was allowed to loiter on the defendant's premises where intoxicating liquors were sold, on the 22d, 24th and 26th days of June, 1916. He testified that he was in the defendant's barroom on the dates named and that one Poulliot was with him, and that on each occasion he was served with liquor by the defendant and his bartenders. Poulliot testified that he was with the minor on the above dates; that each was served with liquor; that each paid for liquor so served; and that when they obtained liquor there they generally stayed in the defendant's saloon ‘about two hours or two and one-half hours.’ This evidnece, if believed, warranted a finding that the plaintiff's son was allowed by the defendant to loiter on the premises, and entitled her to recover the prescribed penalty under counts five, six and seven.
The statute creates three cause of action and allows a recovery for a sale of intoxicating liquor to a minor, for a gift to him of such liquor, and also for allowing him to loiter on the premises where such liquors are sold; they are separate and distinct causes of action. McNeil v. Collinson, 130 Mass. 167. The finding for the plaintiff under counts 1, 2, and 3 for sales of liquor on the three dates named did not prevent a recovery on the counts for loitering on the same dates, if there was evidence to show that the minor did so loiter. Whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molinari v. State
...Munro, 144 Cal.App.2d 843, 301 P.2d 997, 999; and Commonwealth v. De Wan, 181 Pa.Super. 203, 124 A.2d 139, 140. See also Malhoit v. Burns, 235 Mass. 559, 127 N.E. 333, and Tinkle v. Sweeney, 97 Tex. 190, 77 S.W. 609. In the latter case, the fact that a minor stayed in a place where alcoholi......
-
Commonwealth v. Carpenter
... ... Jasmin, 105 Vt. 531, 534, 168 A. 545. See Kennedy v ... Saunders, 142 Mass. 9, 6 N.E. 734; Malhoit v ... Burns, 235 Mass. 559, 127 N.E. 333. [91 N.E.2d 667] In ... the view we take, the facts are unimportant. The part of the ... ordinance here ... ...
- Mason v. Jacot
- Burns v. William J. Burns Int'l Detective Agency Inc.