Commonwealth v. Stevens
This text of 26 N.E. 96 (Commonwealth v. Stevens) 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
W. Allen, J.
There was evidence tending to show that the defendant was in his bar-room on the Sunday in question; that Conley, being under the influence of liquor, went into the barroom while the defendant was there, and after ten or fifteen minutes came out with a bottle full of whiskey in his pocket; that Conley was a witness for the government at the trial in the court below; and that the defendant kept Conley out of the way, so that he could not be had as a witness at the trial in the Superior Court.
The court properly refused to rule that there was not sufficient evidence of a sale to Conley to submit to the jury.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
26 N.E. 96, 153 Mass. 4, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-stevens-mass-1891.