Commonwealth v. Hood
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two complaints, received and sworn to March 27, 1902, under R. L. c. 102, §§ 29-32, each for keeping a shop for the purchase, sale or barter of old metals and second hand articles without a license. In the Superior Court both cases were tried before Aiken, J., who in each case ruled that the jury would be warranted in finding that the defendant was a dealer and in finding that the defendant was guilty.
Read the full summary
Two complaints, received and sworn to March 27, 1902, under R. L. c. 102, §§ 29-32, each for keeping a shop for the purchase, sale or barter of old metals and second hand articles without a license. In the Superior Court both cases were tried before Aiken, J., who in each case ruled that the jury would be warranted in finding that the defendant was a dealer and in finding that the defendant was guilty. The jury in each case returned a verdict of guilty; and "the defendants alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
These were complaints for violation of the provisions of R. L. c. 102, §§ 29-32, concerning junk, old metals and second hand articles. Each complaint alleged that the defendant was the keeper of a shop for the purchase, sale and barter of old metals and second hand articles, not being duly licensed so to do.
In Hood’s case the evidence was that he was a manufacturer and dealer in dental supplies, having a store at which he bought old gold and silver. None of this was sold by him in the condition in which he bought it, but it" was all taken to his refinery and there manufactured into dental…
2Cited by5 opinions
- LaPointe v. License Board of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- City of St. Louis v. BaskowitzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- People v. American Wool Stock Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1941
- Commonwealth v. SilvermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- State v. SilvermanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908