Commonwealth v. Conneally
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment on the Gen. Sts. e. 87, §§ 6, 7, charging that the defendant “ did keep and maintain a certain tenement ” in Brook-line, “ used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors,” whereby, and by force of the statute, the tenement was a common nuisance.
Read the full summary
Indictment on the Gen. Sts. e. 87, §§ 6, 7, charging that the defendant “ did keep and maintain a certain tenement ” in Brook-line, “ used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors,” whereby, and by force of the statute, the tenement was a common nuisance. At the trial in the superior court for Norfolk, before Willánson, J., the defendant, before the jury were empanelled, moved to quash the indictment, because it did not charge that the intoxicating liquors were not other than ale, porter, strong beer or lager beer, or describe their kind, and because the acts alleged…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
1. The indictment was sufficient, within many decisions. Commonwealth v. Kelly, 12 Gray, 175. Commonwealth v. Edds, 14 Gray, 406. Commonwealth v. Bennett, ante, 27.
2. The evidence that in the tenement, for keeping which the defendant was indicted, were a counter, beer-pump, bottles, and tumblers, in some of which were indications that they had recently contained whiskey, was competent, and, taken in connection with the evidence that the tenement was used as “ a saloon,” that spirituous liquors, including brandy, gin and whiskey were found in that tenement, and in the story above,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SheaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Corcoran Management Co. v. BuchananMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2005