Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

119 Mass. 211

Commonwealth v. Kennedy

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 16, 1875

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1875-12-16

Indictment for keeping and maintaining a tenement used for the illegal sale and keeping of intoxicating liquors on August 1, 1874, and divers other days between that day and September 17, 1874.

Relies on Shaw v. Hearsey · Commonwealth v. Barry

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-12-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1927

4 state decisions

10187518801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Colt, J.

¶1The liquors kept for illegal sale were found in a shop which was a portion of a dwelling-house owned by the de fendant and his wife, who acquired title by a deed in which both were named as grantees. They were therefore both seised of the entirety, and the husband was entitled during coverture to the rents and profits. Shaw v. Hearsey, 5 Mass. 521.

¶2The fact that the wife there carried on an illegal traffic, and that he had no interest in the stock in trade or in the profits, does not alone exempt the defendant from the charge of keeping a tenement for the illegal keeping and sale of intoxicating liquors. It was declared in Commonwealth v. Barry, 115 Mass. 146, that the statutes which give a married woman the right to carry on any trade or business on her sole and separate account, do not deprive a husband of his common law right to control his own household; that he has power to prevent his wife from using his house for an illegal business or purpose; that if he permits her to use it for the illegal business of keeping intoxicating liquors for the purpose of sale, he becomes a participator in the misdemeanor ; and that the fact that she is carrying on the business on her own account does not release him from liability.

¶3It is to be assumed in the case at bar, although not distinctly stated, that the place in question was the dwelling-house occupied by the defendant and his wife, and that the defendant permitted the illegal conduct of the wife; and that proper instructions were given to the jury upon these points.

¶4The court properly refused the single instruction requested.

¶5Exceptions overruled,

/119/mass/211 · .json · Public domain