McNeil v. Collinson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
These actions of tobt to recover the penalties prescribed by the St. of 1875, c. 99, § 15. The declaration in each case contained three counts, one for selling intoxicating liquor to a minor son of the plaintiff, one for giving intoxicating liquor to the same person, and one for allowing the same person to loiter upon premises where such liquor was sold. Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
These actions of tobt to recover the penalties prescribed by the St. of 1875, c. 99, § 15. The declaration in each case contained three counts, one for selling intoxicating liquor to a minor son of the plaintiff, one for giving intoxicating liquor to the same person, and one for allowing the same person to loiter upon premises where such liquor was sold. Answer, a general denial. After the former decision, reported 128 Mass. 313, the cases were tried together in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Gardner, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows: The evidence…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
A single question of law, which is common to all these cases, is presented by this bill of exceptions. There is another question applicable to but one of them.
The question which is common to all is this: The St. of 1875, c. 99, forbids any person to sell or to give intoxicating liquor to any minor, or to allow a minor to loiter upon the premises where such sales are made, under a penalty prescribed by the statute; and the precise question of law presented is, Can the same party be liable for the several penalties, for selling, giving, and permitting to loiter on the same day ?
This must depend…
2Cited by3 opinions
- In re GibsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- In re the Estate of MorningstarNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
- Malhoit v. BurnsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920