Commonwealth v. Julius

8 N.E. 898, 143 Mass. 132, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 38
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 26, 1886·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

It has been too often decided to be now open to question, that guilty knowledge that one is acting in violation of law is not essential to the offence of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor; and that whoever has a license is bound, at his own peril, to keep within the terms of it. Commonwealth v. Uhrig, 138 Mass. 492. Commonwealth v. Finnegan, 124 Mass. 324. Roberge v. Burnham, 124 Mass. 277. Commonwealth v. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6.

In the case at bar, the jury have found that the defendant sold liquor to an intoxicated person. The statute does not make guilty knowledge by the defendant one of the elements of the offence; and the court rightly instructed the jury that it was immaterial whether the defendant knew that the person to whom he sold was intoxicated.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Julius, 8 N.E. 898, 143 Mass. 132, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 38 (Mass. 1886).

8 N.E. 898 (Commonwealth v. Julius) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Dubruiel
74 A. 1048 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1909)
Commonwealth v. Lavery
73 N.E. 884 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
United States v. Stofello
76 P. 611 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1904)
Commonwealth v. Green
39 N.E. 775 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Commonwealth v. Joslin
21 L.R.A. 449 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Commonwealth v. Gould
33 N.E. 656 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Commonwealth v. Nagle
32 N.E. 861 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Edwards v. Woodbury
30 N.E. 175 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Commonwealth v. Hayes
23 N.E. 216 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)