Commonwealth v. Lamere

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Lamere

77 Mass. 319

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 77 Mass. 319 (Commonwealth v. Lamere) 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.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Lamere, 77 Mass. 319 (Mass. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

1. Rand’s testimony was admissible and relevant to the issue, as having some tendency to prove the charge of being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. Indicia of the business or occupation — decanters, glasses, pitchers, &e. — are competent evidence, as forming one step towards the point sought for. Commonwealth v. Blood, ante, 74.

2. The instructions to the jury were correct. All the sales were within the time mentioned in the indictment. The particular time of the sales is not material.

Exceptions overruled.

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

By the Court.

1. Rand’s testimony was admissible and relevant to the issue, as having some tendency to prove the charge of being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. Indicia of the business or occupation — decanters, glasses, pitchers, &e. — are competent evidence, as forming one step towards the point sought for. Commonwealth v. Blood, ante, 74.

2. The instructions to the jury were correct. All the sales were within the time mentioned in the indictment. The particular time of the sales is not material.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 Mass. 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-lamere-mass-1858.