Commonwealth v. Gavin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment, for keeping and maintaining a certain tenement in Natick used for the illegal keeping and sale of intoxicating liquors, between May 1, 1892, and February 18, 1893. Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Indictment, for keeping and maintaining a certain tenement in Natick used for the illegal keeping and sale of intoxicating liquors, between May 1, 1892, and February 18, 1893. Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. The government introduced evidence tending to prove that the defendant, during the time in question, was the proprietor of the Russell House in Natick, and during that time had an innholder’s license and licenses of the first and fourth classes under Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 10; and that beer was sold upon the…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
We must take it that the defendant’s bar-keeper, John Gavin, testified that he had sold intoxicating liquor to the minor Murphy within the time covered by the indictment, and that he also testified that it was beer. No question seems to have been raised as to his competency to make the statement, and the evidence does not appear to have been objected to. The testimony was evidence that the beer sold by the witness was intoxicating. Haines v. Hanrahan, 105 Mass. 480. Commonwealth v. White, 15 Gray, 407. Carl v. State, 87 Ala. 17, 23. It follows that the presiding judge could not rule that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Briffitt v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Myers v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Carl v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Haines v. HanrahanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cihak v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916