Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

133 Mass. 404

Commonwealth v. Auberton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 20, 1882

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1882-10-20

Complaint to the Police Court of Holyoke, alleging that the defendant, on March 5, 1882, at Holyoke, being then and there duly licensed according to law to sell intoxicating liquors in a certain building, “did then and there wilfully and unlawfully place and maintain, and authorize to be placed and maintained, upon said premises used by him for the sale of intoxicating liquors under the provisions of his license as aforesaid, certain screens, blinds, shutters, partitions and…

Decided 1882-10-20

W. Allen, J.

¶1The defendant’s license was made by statute subject to various conditions, such as that he should not keep a public bar; that he should hold a license as a common victualler or innholder; that no sale of intoxicating liquor should be made between the hours of twelve at night and six in the morning, nor on the Lord’s day; that no sale of liquor should be made to an intoxicated person or to a minor; and that there should be no disorder or illegal gaming on the premises. The defendant contends that the effect of the condition that no sale should be made on the Lord’s day is, that he was not licensed to sell on that day, and was therefore, although actually engaged in selling intoxicating liquor,- not acting as licensee, nor carrying on the licensed business at the time he committed the act complained of; and that the prohibition against placing an obstruction so as to interfere with a view of the business conducted "upon the premises, in the Pub. Sts. e. 100, § 12, is limited to an act done by a licensee while carrying on the business under his license.

¶2One purpose of the prohibition is to expose violations of the conditions of the license; and to hold that it applies only when the business is carried on according to the conditions, and does not apply when it is carried on in violation of them, would do violence to the language of the statute, and defeat its obvious intent. The instructions asked were therefore properly refused.

¶3The'motion in arrest was properly overruled; and the instructions given in regard to proof of the obstruction were correct.

¶4Exceptions overruled.

/133/mass/404 · .json · Public domain