Commonwealth v. Bentley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquor, At the trial in the superior court, before Morton, J., no question Was raised as to the sufficiency of proof of sales, but the defendant contended that the liquor which he sold was not intoxicating.
Read the full summary
Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquor, At the trial in the superior court, before Morton, J., no question Was raised as to the sufficiency of proof of sales, but the defendant contended that the liquor which he sold was not intoxicating. It appeared in evidence that it was beer, made by himself from sugar, molasses, hops, water and yeast; and that sixty gallons of the same kind of beer, made by and belonging to the defendant, were seized, in barrels, by a state deputy constable, on April 27, 1867. The constable testified that on June 5, 1867, he took a sample of beer out…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
There was sufficient evidence of the identity of the liquor Which was subjected to a chemical analysis, to be submitted to the jury. The objection goes to the weight, not to the competency of the evidence, and cannot avail the defendant on exceptions. It does not appear that any erroneous instructions were given to the jury.
On the same ground, the objection to the details of the analysis must be overruled. In any view of the evidence, the liquor seized was beer, and contained some alcohol. The acetous fermentation, which would operate to turn it into vinegar, had not taken place…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RodriquezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Commonwealth v. BrelsfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Commonwealth v. MealeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925