Commonwealth v. Purcell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Purcell

28 N.E. 288, 154 Mass. 388, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 134

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 N.E. 288 (Commonwealth v. Purcell) 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. Purcell, 28 N.E. 288, 154 Mass. 388, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 134 (Mass. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J.

By the Pub. Sts. c. 101, § 6, “ all buildings, places, or tenements . . . used for the illegal keeping or sale of intox[389]*389icating liquor, shall be deemed common nuisances.” The complaint against the defendant charged that during a specified time he kept and maintained “ a certain place, to wit, a hotel,” used for that purpose. The objection taken on the part of the defendant is that a hotel or other building cannot be considered as a “place” within the meaning of the statute; that therefore the complaint in this particular is repugnant to itself, and that proof of keeping the hotel for the illegal purpose will not support the averment of keeping a place. There is certainly a technical argument of some force in support, of this objection; but we think it would be too strict a construction of the statute to hold that a “ place ” must necessarily be exclusive of a building.

In common speech, a hotel is a place; and the enumeration of buildings, places, and tenements does not necessarily have the effect to require that a building shall not be described as a place. No doubt the word “place” may include what could not properly be described as a building or tenement, but it does not follow that it may not include both. We find nothing in the previous decisions upon this statute which requires the strict construction contended for. Exceptions overruled.

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

Allen, J.

By the Pub. Sts. c. 101, § 6, “ all buildings, places, or tenements . . . used for the illegal keeping or sale of intox[389]*389icating liquor, shall be deemed common nuisances.” The complaint against the defendant charged that during a specified time he kept and maintained “ a certain place, to wit, a hotel,” used for that purpose. The objection taken on the part of the defendant is that a hotel or other building cannot be considered as a “place” within the meaning of the statute; that therefore the complaint in this particular is repugnant to itself, and that proof of keeping the hotel for the illegal purpose will not support the averment of keeping a place. There is certainly a technical argument of some force in support, of this objection; but we think it would be too strict a construction of the statute to hold that a “ place ” must necessarily be exclusive of a building.

In common speech, a hotel is a place; and the enumeration of buildings, places, and tenements does not necessarily have the effect to require that a building shall not be described as a place. No doubt the word “place” may include what could not properly be described as a building or tenement, but it does not follow that it may not include both. We find nothing in the previous decisions upon this statute which requires the strict construction contended for. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.E. 288, 154 Mass. 388, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-purcell-mass-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack