Commonwealth v. Duprey
62 N.E. 726, 180 Mass. 523, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1128
Opinion
The prescription was found in the defendant’s possession along with others, seemingly filed in the regular course of business, and marked in a different handwriting with a date which might be inferred to be the date of its reception. We cannot say that the jury were not warranted in drawing the further inference that it had been filled. Most prescriptions are, and it might be thought that otherwise it would not have been retained.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Duprey, 62 N.E. 726, 180 Mass. 523, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1128 (Mass. 1902).
62 N.E. 726 (Commonwealth v. Duprey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Nugent v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co.
130 N.E. 488 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)