Commonwealth v. Towle
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint to the Third District Court of Eastern Middle-sex, in two counts, alleging that the defendant, on March 16 and 23, 1884, respectively, the same being the Lord’s day, at Cambridge, unlawfully sold intoxicating liquors to a person unknown, not having any license, appointment, or authority to make such sale.
Read the full summary
Complaint to the Third District Court of Eastern Middle-sex, in two counts, alleging that the defendant, on March 16 and 23, 1884, respectively, the same being the Lord’s day, at Cambridge, unlawfully sold intoxicating liquors to a person unknown, not having any license, appointment, or authority to make such sale. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The defendant was in the employ and acting under the authority of Francis Locke, the proprietor of. Porter’s Hotel, Cambridge, who held an innholder’s license and license of…
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
It is the contention of the defendant, — the government having shown that the alleged sale of intoxicating liquors was made on the Lord’s day, and the defendant having proved that he had a license to sell intoxicating liquors and also an innholder’s license, — that it was an erroneous instruction to the jury that the burden of proof was on the defendant to show that the persons to whom the alleged sales were made were guests of the hotel who had resorted thereto for food or lodging.
In all criminal prosecutions in which the defendant relies for his justification upon any license, appointment,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. RaffertyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
3Cited by5 opinions
- Murray v. Continental InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Commonwealth v. ReganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Commonwealth v. MolterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Commonwealth v. BanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- People v. McIntoshNew York Supreme Court · 1886