Commonwealth v. Graham
This text of 56 N.E. 829 (Commonwealth v. Graham) 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
We assume in favor of the defendant that a room kept open by a common victualler ■ merely as a dining-room is not a shop within the meaning of St. 1895, c. 434, § 2. But the ruling asked for by the defendant was too broad. It went upon the ground that if the defendant’s principal business was supplying meals sbe could not be guilty of keeping the place open on the Lord’s day. If one of her purposes in keeping the place open was the sale of cigars she was guilty of the offence charged. The sale of cigars in the restaurant on the Lord’s day was evidence for the jury that one of the defendant’s purposes in keeping it open was to make such sales. Because of this evidence the request was rightly refused. The only exception is to the refusal to give the request. It is to be presumed that correct instructions were in fact given.
jExceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
56 N.E. 829, 176 Mass. 5, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-graham-mass-1900.