Commonwealth v. Kelley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for keeping and maintaining a tenement used for the illegal keeping, and for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors. Upon the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., a witness for the government testified that he took up a tumbler in the defendant’s place, and smelled of it, and that it smelled cf ale.
Read the full summary
Indictment for keeping and maintaining a tenement used for the illegal keeping, and for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors. Upon the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., a witness for the government testified that he took up a tumbler in the defendant’s place, and smelled of it, and that it smelled cf ale. Upon cross-examination, he was asked whether there was any liquor in the tumbler that he took up ; he replied, “ There was froth,” and declined to make any other answer. The defendant asked the court to rule that the question was not answered, and requested the court to…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
The question in this case turns upon the point of the purpose for which the inquiries in cross-examination were put. If it was merely to test the accuracy of the witness, or the degree of reliance to be placed upon his statement that the tumbler “ smelled of ale,” then the rule applies that the extent and limit of cross-examination for such purposes is largely if not wholly within the discretion of the judge presiding at the trial. Odiorne v. Bacon, 6 Cush. 185, 191. Commonwealth v. Shaw, 4 Cush. 593. Rand v. Newton, 6 Allen, 38. Miller v. Smith, 112 Mass. 470. Commonwealth v. Lyden, ante,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miller v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
3Cited by3 opinions
- Thayer v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Taylor v. SchofieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Commonwealth v. ParsonsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907