Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Mass. 165

Commonwealth v. Eaton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 15, 1829

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1829-11-15

The indictment against the defendant set forth, that, without a license, he “ did presume to be a common seller of rum and other strong liquors by retail, and in his shop” did “ commonly and publicly sell and utter by retail, and did cause to be sold and uttered, by retail, rum and other strong liquors to divers good citizens,” &c. The defendant, having pleaded not guilty and been convicted in the Common Pleas, appealed to this Court.

Decided 1829-11-15

Per Curiam.

¶1It seems to us that the indictment is sufficient. The allegation that the defendant presumed to be a common seller, by retail, is enough, without alleging that the quantity was less than twenty-eight gallons. That may be deemed the legislative definition of the term retail; and it is matter of evidence for the defendant, to show that the quantities which he sold were not less. It is like the case of the Commonwealth v. Messenger, 4 Mass. R. 462, a prosecution for a violation of the statute for the due observation of the Lord’s day ; in which the allegation, that the defendant worked on the Lord’s day, was held sufficient, although the statute defines precisely the hours which are to be considered the Lord’s day, and there was no allegation that it was within these hours that the offence was committed.

¶2According to the agreement of the parties, the defendant m jst plead guilty to the indictment.

/26/mass/165 · .json · Public domain