Commonwealth v. Bow

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Bow

58 N.E. 1017, 177 Mass. 347, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 644

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 2, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 58 N.E. 1017 (Commonwealth v. Bow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Bow, 58 N.E. 1017, 177 Mass. 347, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 644 (Mass. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, C. J.

The Merry-go-round was a public amusement within Pub. Sts. c. 102, §§ 115,116. The virtuous character of the enjoyment of those who were amused by it is not enough to make an exception to the general words of the statute. The defendants were active in the entertainment, which was decided not to be necessary in Commonwealth v. Quinn, 164 Mass. 11. The object was amusement only, not instruction, and so the defendants get no help from Commonwealth v. Gee, 6 Cush. 174. It is true that the number of persons who could ride the defendants’ wooden horses at any one time was limited, but that is true of all amusements. The public was invited, and several, if not many, could be accommodated at once. There is nothing to show that the number was so small as to raise the question whether an amusement which could be enjoyed by people only one at a time is public if the public comes to and pays for it in such manner as the nature of the diversion permits.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Holmes, C. J.

The Merry-go-round was a public amusement within Pub. Sts. c. 102, §§ 115,116. The virtuous character of the enjoyment of those who were amused by it is not enough to make an exception to the general words of the statute. The defendants were active in the entertainment, which was decided not to be necessary in Commonwealth v. Quinn, 164 Mass. 11. The object was amusement only, not instruction, and so the defendants get no help from Commonwealth v. Gee, 6 Cush. 174. It is true that the number of persons who could ride the defendants’ wooden horses at any one time was limited, but that is true of all amusements. The public was invited, and several, if not many, could be accommodated at once. There is nothing to show that the number was so small as to raise the question whether an amusement which could be enjoyed by people only one at a time is public if the public comes to and pays for it in such manner as the nature of the diversion permits.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.E. 1017, 177 Mass. 347, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-bow-mass-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack