Commonwealth v. Collier
This text of 134 Mass. 203 (Commonwealth v. Collier) 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.
Opinion
C. Allen, J.
1. The principal fact in dispute was whether the beer which was drawn and sold was lager beer or Bavarian hop beer. This depended in part on whether it came from Stanley’s. As bearing on this question, it was competent to prove that the barrel from which the beer was drawn had a label of Stanley’s upon it. The witness in effect testified, “ I know this beer came from Stanley’s, because I had no other beer, and because Stanley’s label was upon the barrel, and here is the label itself, which can be identified as his.” The weight [206]*206of this evidence, of course, was for the jury. But a witness who testifies to a principal fact may also give all circumstances relating to it which may tend to confirm his testimony. The label, therefore, should have been admitted. 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 51-53.
2. Stanley’s opinion whether any person could determine from the taste alone the proportion of alcohol in a given sample of beer was incompetent.
3. The refusal to give the requested instruction was right.
On the first point only, the entry must be,
Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
134 Mass. 203, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-collier-mass-1883.