Commonwealth v. Barlow
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. At the trial-in the superior court, before Brigham, J., certain witnesses testified, for the government, to seeing a large number of sales of ale and whiskey at the defendant’s place of business.
Read the full summary
Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. At the trial-in the superior court, before Brigham, J., certain witnesses testified, for the government, to seeing a large number of sales of ale and whiskey at the defendant’s place of business. The defendant himself testified that he sold no liquors there but “ nectar and mineral water,” and called witnesses, who testified that they had frequented the place, and had seen him sell these beverages, but no others, and that these resembled ale and whiskey. The defendant then proposed to show, by these witnesses, that, on several…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The fact that on certain occasions the defendant did not sell intoxicating liquor to persons who wished to buy it, had no tendency to contradict or control the evidence that at other times he had made sales of such liquor as testified to by the government witnesses. Proof that a man has violated the law in particular instances cannot be rebutted by proof that he did not violate it in other instances when he had the opportunity and was tempted to do so. Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Archer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- State v. HallSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1887
- State v. LinderOhio Supreme Court · 1907