Commonwealth v. Hagan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a certain tenement in Bridgewater, used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors, on March 1, 1884, and on divers other days and times between that day and October 29, 1884. Trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: It appeared in evidence, that the defendant was duly licensed by the selectmen of Bridgewater as an…
Read the full summary
Indictment for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a certain tenement in Bridgewater, used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors, on March 1, 1884, and on divers other days and times between that day and October 29, 1884. Trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: It appeared in evidence, that the defendant was duly licensed by the selectmen of Bridgewater as an innholder, and also had licenses of the first and fourth classes, under the Pub. Sts. c. 100, to sell intoxicating liquors, for…
1Opinion of the CourtW. Allen, J.
The only exception is to the instructions given, and to the refusal to give instructions asked, in regard to what would show that a person to whom intoxicating liquor was sold on the Lord’s day at an inn was a guest of the inn, within the meaning of the Pub. Sts. e. 100, § 9, el. 2, which provide that a licensed innholder “ may supply such liquor to guests who havé resorted to his house for food or lodging.”
The instructions asked by the defendant, and the objections urged by him to the instructions given, are founded on the supposed general meaning of the word “ guest.” It is not worth *292while…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ReganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Commonwealth v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Cake v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1909