Commonwealth v. Chaney

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Chaney

18 N.E. 572, 148 Mass. 6, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 2

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 27, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 N.E. 572 (Commonwealth v. Chaney) 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. Chaney, 18 N.E. 572, 148 Mass. 6, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 2 (Mass. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, J.

One issue of fact was, whether the defendant sold in his tenement, during the time alleged in the complaint, cider or native wine “ to be drunk on ” the “ premises.” Pub. Sts. c. 100, §§ 1, 27. Evidence that cider and wine were drunk on the premises, by various persons, during this time, was competent [8]*8in connection with evidence that cider and wine were sold there during the same time,. although the occasions were different. The evidence taken together had some tendency to prove that the tenement was used both for selling and for drinking intoxicating liquor, and the whole evidence may have been sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that some of the liquor drunk on the premises had been sold there by the defendant.

The answers given to the questions put to Burns and Boyle do not appear in- the exceptions, and therefore it does not appear that the defendant has been prejudiced by the admission of evidence, even if the questions should have been excluded. The questions were competent in substance, as they called for testimony relating to the drinking or the obtaining of cider upon the premises, presumably during the time alleged. The court could permit the attorney for the Commonwealth to put leading questions to these witnesses. The objection does not appear to have been taken, that the questions assumed facts of which there was no evidence, and apparently the exceptions were not drawn for the purpose of presenting this objection.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Field, J.

One issue of fact was, whether the defendant sold in his tenement, during the time alleged in the complaint, cider or native wine “ to be drunk on ” the “ premises.” Pub. Sts. c. 100, §§ 1, 27. Evidence that cider and wine were drunk on the premises, by various persons, during this time, was competent [8]*8in connection with evidence that cider and wine were sold there during the same time,. although the occasions were different. The evidence taken together had some tendency to prove that the tenement was used both for selling and for drinking intoxicating liquor, and the whole evidence may have been sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that some of the liquor drunk on the premises had been sold there by the defendant.

The answers given to the questions put to Burns and Boyle do not appear in- the exceptions, and therefore it does not appear that the defendant has been prejudiced by the admission of evidence, even if the questions should have been excluded. The questions were competent in substance, as they called for testimony relating to the drinking or the obtaining of cider upon the premises, presumably during the time alleged. The court could permit the attorney for the Commonwealth to put leading questions to these witnesses. The objection does not appear to have been taken, that the questions assumed facts of which there was no evidence, and apparently the exceptions were not drawn for the purpose of presenting this objection.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.E. 572, 148 Mass. 6, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-chaney-mass-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack