Commonwealth v. Belou
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint to the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, averring that the defendant was, on .certain days named, without then having any license, appointment or authority therefor, a common seller of spirituous and intoxicating liquors*. In the Superior Courc on appeal and before the trial the defendant filed a motion which was overruled, to quash the complaint, for the reason, “ that the copy of the record of judgment sent up on appeal from, the Municipal Court was not duly…
Read the full summary
Complaint to the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, averring that the defendant was, on .certain days named, without then having any license, appointment or authority therefor, a common seller of spirituous and intoxicating liquors*. In the Superior Courc on appeal and before the trial the defendant filed a motion which was overruled, to quash the complaint, for the reason, “ that the copy of the record of judgment sent up on appeal from, the Municipal Court was not duly authenticated, as the clerk of said Municipal Court had not certified to said copy by adding the title of his office…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The attestation of a copy of the record of the Municipal Court is in the usual form, and clearly shows that the clerk was the clerk of the same court, without a fuller addition to his signature.
The burden of proving any license, appointment or authority, under which the defendant justified, was upon him, whether he was the proprietor of the place or a mere servant or agent. St. 1864, c. 121. Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. McCartyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886