Commonwealth v. Kendrick
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint to a trial justice, alleging that the defendant, on February 11, 1888, at North Brookfield, did unlawfully keep intoxicating liquors for sale. At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Sherman, J., the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions, the substance of which appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The only question in this case is whether the testimony of the witness Bennett, in relation to the intoxicating quality of the beer which he analyzed, was competent.
The provisions of the St. of 1882, c. 221, in regard to sending samples of ljquors to the State assayer, and requiring that a certificate of an officer shall accompany the beer, are applicable only to cases where the certificate of the assayer is sought to be introduced in trials for the forfeiture of liquors, and they do not preclude the Commonwealth from showing by oral testimony that some of the liquor kept for sale has been…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RobinsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Commonwealth v. SpearMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
3Cited by6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BrelsfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- State v. ClarkSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
- Shumway v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Commonwealth v. StolerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Heal v. International Agricultural Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.