¶1It does not appear in this complaint that West Brookfield, the place where the defendant is charged with having sold intoxicating liquor, is either a town, or a place within the county of Worcester. It therefore does not appear that any magistrate in this county, or any court held in this county, has jurisdiction of the offence set forth in the complaint. Hence the cases of Commonwealth v. Springfield, 7 Mass. 9, and Commonwealth v. Cummings, ante, 487, are quite distinguishable from this. Judgment arrested.
72 Mass. 488
Commonwealth v. Barnard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 15, 1856
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1856-09-15
<p>A complaint made to a justice of the peace for the county of Worcester, which charges an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor at “ West Brookfield,”- without saying “ ai the town of West Brookfield,” or alleging it to be in the county of Worcester, is fatally defective.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1914
1 state decisions
Relies on Commonwealth v. Inhabitants of Springfield
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1856-09-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →