Commonwealth v. Kelley

Decided January 4, 1896

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1896-01-04

Complaint, for keeping a common nuisance, to wit, a tenement in Framingham for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquor. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., it appeared that the case had been tried once before, and that the jury were unable to agreé.

Relies on Kullberg v. O'Donnell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-01-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1968

5 state decisions

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 →

Field, C. J.

¶1No exception was taken at the time to the remarks of the presiding justice to the jury when they came into court to receive further instructions, and the defendant is not entitled as of right to have his objections to the remarks considered, although exceptions might have been taken on a motion for a new trial if the motion had been denied. Kullberg v. O'Donnell, 158 Mass. 405. However, exceptions having been allowed, we have examined them, and we see no error of law in what was done and said by the justice presiding at the trial.

¶2Exceptions overruled.