Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

134 Mass. 203

Commonwealth v. Collier

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 15, 1883

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1883-01-15

<p>At the trial of a complaint for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, the evidence for the government tended to show a sale by the defendant of lager beer. The defendant testified that, at the time of the alleged sale, he had no intoxicating liquors on his premises; that the only beer he bad was Bavarian hop beer; and that he bought all of his beer of a certain brewer; and he produced and identified a label as the label which was on the barrel from which the alleged lager beer was drawn. He then offered the label in evidence for the purpose of identifying the barrel and its contents; but it was excluded. Held, that it should have been admitted.</p> <p>At the trial of a complaint for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, a witness testified for the government that he tasted liquor sold by the defendant; that it was lager beer; and that he could tell by the taste alone whether it contained three per cent of alcohol. Held, that the defendant was not entitled to ask a witness, an expert in the manufacture and taste of beer, whether a person could determine from the taste alone the proportion of alcohol contained in a given sample of beer.</p> <p>At the trial of a complaint for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, it appeared that the defendant’s saloon was fitted up with a bar, beer-pump, glasses and • bottles; that on the exterior wall was the sign, “ Ale and Lager Beer; ” that, at the time of the alleged sale, the defendant had no license to sell intoxicating liquors, but that he had previously had a license. He testified that the interior arrangements of the saloon and the sign on the exterior were the same on the day of the alleged sale as they were when he had Ms license. He then asked the judge to instruct the jury, that, if they believed that the interior arrangement of the saloon, and the sign on the exterior, were in the same condition and position on the day of the alleged sale as they were in during the time he had his license, “ no inference adverse to the defendant can be drawn therefrom.” The judge declined to give this instruction. Held, that the defendant had no ground of exception.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1973

3 state decisions

101883189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

C. Allen, J.

¶11. The principal fact in dispute was whether the beer which was drawn and sold was lager beer or Bavarian hop beer. This depended in part on whether it came from Stanley’s. As bearing on this question, it was competent to prove that the barrel from which the beer was drawn had a label of Stanley’s upon it. The witness in effect testified, “ I know this beer came from Stanley’s, because I had no other beer, and because Stanley’s label was upon the barrel, and here is the label itself, which can be identified as his.” The weight *206of this evidence, of course, was for the jury. But a witness who testifies to a principal fact may also give all circumstances relating to it which may tend to confirm his testimony. The label, therefore, should have been admitted. 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 51-53.

¶22. Stanley’s opinion whether any person could determine from the taste alone the proportion of alcohol in a given sample of beer was incompetent.

¶33. The refusal to give the requested instruction was right.

¶4On the first point only, the entry must be,

¶5 Exceptions sustained.

/134/mass/203 · .json · Public domain