Commonwealth v. Stratton
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a tenement in Milford used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors, from November 1 to November 20, 1888. • At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Brigham, C. J., there was evidence that the defendant had a license as an innholder.
Read the full summary
Complaint for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a tenement in Milford used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors, from November 1 to November 20, 1888. • At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Brigham, C. J., there was evidence that the defendant had a license as an innholder. The defendant introduced in evidence a license of the first class, which certified that “ the board of selectmen of the town of Milford have granted a license to John Stratton, doing business at Lincoln House, Memorial Hall Square, to sell, or expose or…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
The defendant had a license as an innholder, and also a license of the first class, under the Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 10, to sell liquor to be drunk on the premises. The Superior Court ruled that the last named license was invalid, because it did not specify the room or rooms in which such liquor should be sold or kept. This ruling was erroneous. The statute provides that each license of the first class shall be subject to the condition “ that the licensee shall not keep a public bar, and shall hold a license as an innholder or common victualler; and shall specify the room or rooms in which such…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Courtright v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- People v. WhiteMichigan Supreme Court · 1901