¶1were of opinion that the indictment described the person, to whom the sale was made, by her name at the time when the indictment was found, and that the conviction could not be supported. And the attorney general, with the concurrence of the court, (required by St. 1852, c. 322, § 13, in cases arising under that statute,) entered a nolle prosequi.
68 Mass. 358
Commonwealth v. Brown
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided October 15, 1854
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1854-10-15
Indictment on St. 1852, c. 322, § 7, for an unlawful sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors “ to a certain person whose name is Mary Garland.” At the trial in the court of common pleas, a witness was called for the Commonwealth, by the name of Mary Garland, and appeared and testified to a sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquor made to her by the defendant; and testified, upon cross-examination, that she was then the wife of Jeffrey Morrison, having been married to…
Decided 1854-10-15