Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

155 Mass. 284

Commonwealth v. Murphy

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 6, 1892

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1892-01-06

<p>Intoxicating Liquors — Complaint and Warrant — Statute — Formal Defects.</p> <p>Under the Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 9, cl. 4, a complaint charging a sale of intoxicating liquor to a minor is good, without averring a delivery of the liquor to him, or any averment to show whether the sale was for his own use or that of his parent, or of some other person.</p> <p>The fact that intoxicating liquor was procured to be used in evidence will not prevent a conviction under the Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 9, cl. 4; the prohibition of the statute includes sales for other uses than as a beverage.</p> <p>Where the record in a criminal case»recited that the defendant was brought before a district court by virtue of a warrant in due form of law, and no objection was made in the district court to the form of the warrant, none is open on appeal in the Superior Court, and an omission to send up a copy of the warrant is immaterial.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1934

1 state decisions

Relies on Commonwealth v. O'Leary · Commonwealth v. Wait · Commonwealth v. Hart

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-01-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Allen, j.

¶1By the Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 9, cl. 4, it is provided that no sale or delivery of liquor shall be made on the premises described in the license to a minor, either for his own use, the use of his parent, or of any other person. Under this clause, a complaint charging a sale to a minor is good, without averring a delivery of the liquor to such minor, and without any averment to show whether the sale was for the minor’s own use, or for the use of his parent, or of some other person. Commonwealth v. O'Leary, 143 Mass. 95. Commonwealth v. Fowler, 145 Mass. 398.

¶2The instructions requested were properly refused. The fact that the liquor was procured for the purpose of being used in evidence was immaterial. The prohibition of the statute is broad and general, and includes sales for other uses besides use as a beverage.

¶3The omission to send up a copy of the warrant is immaterial. The record recites that the defendant was brought before the district court by virtue of a warrant in due form of law. No objection was made in the district court to the form of the warrant ; and none was open in the Superior Court on the appeal. Pub. Sts. c. 214, § 25. Commonwealth v. Henry, 7 Cush. 512. Commonwealth v. Burke, 121 Mass. 39. Commonwealth v. Hart, 123 Mass. 416. Commonwealth v. Wait, 131 Mass. 417. Commonwealth v. Lynn, 154 Mass. 405.

¶4 Pxeeptions overruled.

/155/mass/284 · .json · Public domain