Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

143 Mass. 88

Commonwealth v. Wallace

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 24, 1886

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1886-11-24

<p>At the trial of an indictment for keeping and maintaining a tenement used for the illegal sale and keeping of intoxicating liquors, if the defendant has a license of the first class, under the Pub. Sts. c. 100, to sell such liquors at the premises described, and the government relies on violations by the defendant of the conditions of his license, the defendant is not entitled to ask, on cross-examination, a witness for the government, who has testified to the character of the premises during the time covered by the indictment, and to his familiarity with the premises for eight years before, what was the character of the premises during the time covered by the indictment as compared with what it was before the defendant occupied under his license.</p> <p>At the trial of an indictment for keeping and maintaining a tenement used for the illegal sale and keeping of intoxicating liquors, the situation of the tenement and that of the one adjoining, which was also occupied by the defendant, may be such in reference to each other that the u§e made of the latter is evidence that the former was kept for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors.</p> <p>At the trial of an indictment for keeping and maintaining a tenement used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors, it appeared that the defendant had a license of the first class, under the Pub. Sts. c. 100, to sell such liquors at premises situated at the corner of two streets; and the government introduced evidence tending to show, among other things, that intoxicated persons congregated on the sidewalk at the corner of said streets. The defendant asked the judge to rule “ that evidence of drunkenness or disturbance on the street and street corner, not shown to be connected with the defendant, or with the defendant’s premises, is not competent to prove violation by the defendant of his license.” The judge declined so to rule. Held, that the defendant had no ground of exception.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1945

2 state decisions

Relies on Commonwealth v. Leighton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-11-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Field, J.

¶1A comparison of the character of the defendant’s occupation of the premises while he held a license with that of the occupation of either another person or of himself at some other time, would involve an inquiry into a matter wholly foreign to the case.

¶2The situation of the premises No. 107 South Water Street, and of the premises next south of these, may have been such in reference to each other that the use made of the latter by the defendant was properly some evidence that the former were kept by him for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors.

¶3The request for a ruling “ that evidence of drunkenness or disturbance on the street and street corner, not shown to be connected with the defendant, or with the defendant’s premises, is not competent to prove violation by the defendant of his license,” must be taken to mean, that the connection must be shown by direct testimony to make the evidence competent. The frequent presence of drunken persons on the street and street corner, if near the defendant’s premises, might be evidence, under all the circumstances shown to exist, that these persons obtained the intoxicating liquors of the defendant on these premises. Commonwealth v. Leighton, 140 Mass. 305.

¶4 Exceptions overruled.

/143/mass/88 · .json · Public domain