Commonwealth v. Hickey
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment on the St. of 1875, c. 99, in three counts. The first count alleged that the defendant, on June 24, 1878, at Cambridge, was the holder of a license of the first class under said statute, which license duly authorized and permitted him to sell spirituous or intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises described in the license, but which license was granted to and held by him upon the express provision and condition that he should not keep a public bar on said…
Read the full summary
Indictment on the St. of 1875, c. 99, in three counts. The first count alleged that the defendant, on June 24, 1878, at Cambridge, was the holder of a license of the first class under said statute, which license duly authorized and permitted him to sell spirituous or intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises described in the license, but which license was granted to and held by him upon the express provision and condition that he should not keep a public bar on said premises; and that he, “ being then and there licensed as aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, wilfully and…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
It is enacted by the St. of 1875, c. 99, § 1, that no person shall sell, or expose or keep for sale spirituous or intoxicating liquors, except as authorized in that act. The licenses which may be granted under the statute are conditional; and in the *251case of a prosecution against a person who has had such a license but has violated its conditions, the general averment that he had no license, authority or appointment according to law to make such sale is sufficient to warrant the introduction of evidence of any sale which was unlawful under the statute. Commonwealth v. Fredericks, 119 Mass.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FredericksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Commonwealth v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fallon v. Street CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941