Commonwealth v. Kelley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two complaints, brought in the Second District Court of Bristol, for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a certain tenement in Fall River used for the illegal sale and keeping of intoxicating liquors, on November 4, 1899, and on divers other days and times between that day and November 14, 1899. At the trial in the Superior Court upon appeal, before jBell, J., it appeared that the defendants, who were partners, were licensed innholders, and also held a license…
Read the full summary
Two complaints, brought in the Second District Court of Bristol, for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a certain tenement in Fall River used for the illegal sale and keeping of intoxicating liquors, on November 4, 1899, and on divers other days and times between that day and November 14, 1899. At the trial in the Superior Court upon appeal, before jBell, J., it appeared that the defendants, who were partners, were licensed innholders, and also held a license of the first class for the sale of intoxicating liquors during the time charged in the complaint, which'license…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 9, cl. 2, provides as one of the conditions of licenses “ that no sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquor shall be made between the hours of twelve at night and six in the morning; nor during the Lord’s day, except that, if the licensee is also licensed as an innholder,-he may supply such liquor to guests who-have resorted to his house for food or lodging.” By the St. 1885, c. 90, the word “ twelve ” is changed to “ eleven.” The only question in this case is whether the excep*223tian permitting innholders to supply guests extends to the hours between eleven at night and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bullard v. ChandlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Proprietors of Mills on Monatiquot River v. Inhabitants of Randolph, Holbrook, & BraintreeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Maney v. Providence & Worcester RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Prouty v. Union Hardware Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
3Cited by15 opinions
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- Tuohey v. MartinjakSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Moulton v. Brookline Rent Control BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Burnham v. Mayor & Aldermen of BeverlyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Dowling v. Board of AssessorsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.