Commonwealth v. Thayer
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a complaint against the defendant for selling to Albert Hersey one glass of spiritous liquor, on the 19th of February 1844. The form of the complaint, mutatis mutandis, was the same as in the next preceding case, against the same defendant. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Ward, J. “ it appeared that the defendant was keeper of a public house in which was a bar and a bar-keeper.
Read the full summary
This was a complaint against the defendant for selling to Albert Hersey one glass of spiritous liquor, on the 19th of February 1844. The form of the complaint, mutatis mutandis, was the same as in the next preceding case, against the same defendant. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Ward, J. “ it appeared that the defendant was keeper of a public house in which was a bar and a bar-keeper. Albert Hersey, the only witness produced, testified that he never bought any spiritous liquor of the defendant; that he bought a cake of him, for six cents, and at the same time a decanter of…
1Opinion of the CourtDewey, J.
The question whether the defendant sold the liquor, as alleged in the complaint, was submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The government alleged a sale to Albert Hersey of one glass of spiritous liquor, and was bound to establish the fact. To constitute such sale, there must be the assent of the two parties; there must be a vendor and a vendee. But no words need be proved to have been spoken. A sale may be inferred from the acts of the parties, and no disguise which the parties may attempt to throw over the transac tion, with a view of evading the penalty of the law, can avail…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Scoggin v. City of MorriltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916