Commonwealth v. Curran
This text of 119 Mass. 206 (Commonwealth v. Curran) 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
Most of the exceptions in this case are disposed of by the judgment in Commonwealth v. Fredericks, ante, 199, and the others are equally unfounded.
1. The allegation in the complaint that the defendant did expose and keep for sale intoxicating liquors, charges but a single offence, and is not bad for duplicity. Commonwealth v. Nichols, 10 Allen, 199.
2. If the defendant was proved to have kept intoxicating liquors for sale, the burden of proving that he had a license or authority so to do was upon him. St. 1864, c. 121, § 1. Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 108 Mass. 292. Commonwealth v. Leo, 110 Mass. 414. Commonwealth v. Shea, 115 Mass. 102.
3. The jury were instructed, in accordance with the defendant’s fourth request, that the burden of proof was on the government to prove that the liquors exposed and kept for sale were intoxicating, and that the jury must acquit if the evidence left them in doubt as to that fact. The addition made by the judge to this instruction was clearly correct; for § 18 of the St. of 1875, c. 99, provides that ale as well as distilled spirits shall be deemed intoxicating liquors, within the meaning of the statute.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
119 Mass. 206, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-curran-mass-1875.