Commonwealth v. O'Donnell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., the' defendant offered to prove a license under the St. of U. S. of 1862, c. 119, authorizing him to sell liquors by retail during the time covered by the indictment; and, there being evidence that confectionery, tobacco and other articles were kept for sale at the defendant’s place of business, he asked the court to rule that if the jury should find that…
Read the full summary
Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., the' defendant offered to prove a license under the St. of U. S. of 1862, c. 119, authorizing him to sell liquors by retail during the time covered by the indictment; and, there being evidence that confectionery, tobacco and other articles were kept for sale at the defendant’s place of business, he asked the court to rule that if the jury should find that the sale of those articles was his main business, and the sales of liquor testified of were only incidental to or growing…
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
It was decided in Commonwealth v. Thorniley, 6 Allen, 445, that a license under the United States St. of 1862, c. 119, does not authorize sales of intoxicating liquor, which are (in the words of that statute) “ in violation of the laws of any state or territory ; ” and as the selling of such liquor, though not the seller’s main business, but only incidental to his lawful main business, is as much a violation of our state laws, when it is not thereby authorized, as any other unauthorized selling thereof, there is no plausible pretence for holding that such selling is protected by such license.
T…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Underhill v. Agawam Mutual Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850