Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxicating Liquors
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint on the St. of 1869, c. 415, § 44, to the municipal court of the city of Worcester, for a warrant of search for certain intoxicating liquors, alleged to be kept for unlawful sale, in that city, by Zephaniah Spurr and Albert Williams. On the warrant, the liquors were seized ; and Spurr and Williams were summoned as claimants.
Read the full summary
Complaint on the St. of 1869, c. 415, § 44, to the municipal court of the city of Worcester, for a warrant of search for certain intoxicating liquors, alleged to be kept for unlawful sale, in that city, by Zephaniah Spurr and Albert Williams. On the warrant, the liquors were seized ; and Spurr and Williams were summoned as claimants. They appeared accordingly in the superior court; and before the jury were empanelled they filed a motion to quash the proceedings, “because, they say, the complaint, warrant, judgment of the municipal court, order of notice, notice and ser» vice thereof, are all…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The only question open to the claimant in this case is whether the municipal court of the city of Worcester had authority to receive the complaint and issue the warrant. This question was decided against the claimant in Commonwealth v. Intoxicating Liquors, 103 Mass. 448.
The other objections to the complaint and warrant, now urged by the claimant, are for formal defects apparent on the face thereof, and, not having been “ specifically assigned ” in his motion to quash, are not now open to him. St. 1864, c. 250, § 2, Commonwealth v. Sholes, 13 Allen, 554.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxicating LiquorsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MurrayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Commonwealth v. LangleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897