Commonwealth v. Cummings
This text of 72 Mass. 487 (Commonwealth v. Cummings) 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
As the complaint alleges that Peter Cummings of New Braintree in the county of Worcester sold intoxicating liquor at New Braintree, it must be understood that he is charged with having sold it at the s same New Braintree which is before mentioned, namely, in the county of Worcester. See Commonwealth v. Springfield, 7 Mass. 9. If New Braintree had not been previously designated as within the county of Worcester, the complaint would have been insufficient to sustain a judgment. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
72 Mass. 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-cummings-mass-1856.