Commonwealth v. Ringold
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint for a violation of §§ 1 and 10 of Article VII. of the bydaws of the town of Amesbury adopted under the provisions of Pub.
Read the full summary
Complaint for a violation of §§ 1 and 10 of Article VII. of the bydaws of the town of Amesbury adopted under the provisions of Pub. "Sts. c. 102, § 29. Article VII. § 1 of the by-laws of the town of Amesbury provides as follows: The Board of Selectmen may annually “ license persons to be dealers in and keepers of shops for the purchase, sale or barter of junk, old metals or second-hand articles in said Amesbury, subject to the provisions of Chapter 102 of the Public Statutes of this Commonwealth and acts amendatory of and additional thereto and may revoke at pleasure.” Section 10 of the same…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
This is a complaint charging the defendant with being a dealer in and purchaser of junk in the town of Amesbury without having any license therefor in said town, and contrary to the statutes, and to the by-laws of said town. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the case is here on exceptions by the defendant to the refusal of the judge to direct a verdict of not guilty.
There does not seem to have been any dispute as to the facts. The defendant lives in Newburyport. It appeared that he came *309to Amesbury from time to time and bought from a certain number of carriage manufacturers who were…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- City of Duluth v. BloomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. ShapiroCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1917
- Leach v. FlorkoskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
- City of New York v. VandewaterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- City of Chicago v. LowenthalIllinois Supreme Court · 1909
- Grace Iron & Steel Corp. v. AckermanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.