Commonwealth v. Uhrig
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a certain tenement used for the illegal sale and keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors from May 1, 1887, to September 19, 1887. At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Aldrich, J., it was admitted that the defendant was the proprietor and had control of the Prospect House, a public hotel in Cambridge.
Read the full summary
Complaint for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a certain tenement used for the illegal sale and keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors from May 1, 1887, to September 19, 1887. At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Aldrich, J., it was admitted that the defendant was the proprietor and had control of the Prospect House, a public hotel in Cambridge. The district attorney called as a witness one Batchelder, and asked him the following question: “ During the time covered by the complaint did you see posted in the defendant’s premises a United States tax receipt…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The fact that the defendant kept posted in his premises a United States tax receipt running to him as a dealer in spirituous or intoxicating liquors, is competent evidence that he kept the premises for the sale of liquor, irrespective of the provisions of the St. of 1887, c. 414.
So far as that statute authorizes the introduction of such evidence, it is merely declaratory of the common law, and is valid. In the case at bar, the only ruling was that the evidence was admissible; no ruling was asked or given as to the weight or effect of the evidence. The ruling given was clearly…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. LaPointeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917