¶1The evidence was competent in the first instance, because it proved one material fact, to wit, a sale of liquors by somebody; but the evidence failing to identify the person of the defendant, the court should have instructed the jury that without further evidence of his identity it was not competent to prove a third sale. Exceptions sustained.
80 Mass. 385
Commonwealth v. Snow
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 15, 1860
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1860-01-15
<p>On the trial of S. for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors, two sales were proved, and a witness testified that he bought liquor at the same place “ of a man they called S.,” who “looked pretty near like ” the defendant, but whom he would not swear to be the defendant. ¿TeZtf, that tliis was not sufficient evidence of a third sale by the defendant</p>
Decided 1860-01-15