Commonwealth v. Nichols
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment alleging that the defendant, on a certain day and at a certain place, “ did unlawfully keep, offer for sale and sell to one Patrick Keenan, for the sum of forty cents, a large quantity, that is to say, eight quarts of adulterated milk, to which a large quantity, that is to say, six quarts of water had been added; he the said Nichols well knowing said milk so sold to be adulterated, and well knowing that said large quantity of water had been added to said milk.”
Read the full summary
Indictment alleging that the defendant, on a certain day and at a certain place, “ did unlawfully keep, offer for sale and sell to one Patrick Keenan, for the sum of forty cents, a large quantity, that is to say, eight quarts of adulterated milk, to which a large quantity, that is to say, six quarts of water had been added; he the said Nichols well knowing said milk so sold to be adulterated, and well knowing that said large quantity of water had been added to said milk.” The defendant filed a demurrer to said indictment, which was overruled. At the trial in the superior court, before…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, J.
The authorities cited for the Commonwealth fully establish the sufficiency of the indictment. It alleges only a single offence.
The objection that it was necessary to prove the knowledge of the defendant that water had been added to the milk is groundless. Commonwealth v. Farren, 9 Allen, 489.
The practical experience of Faxon, the inspector of milk, had been such that his testimony was admissible. Carpenter v. Wait, 11 Cush. 257. Tests by means of instruments are much used in a great variety of cases, and are found to be trustworthy, and for this reason they are admissible in evidence. In each…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bradley v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1884