Commonwealth v. Worcestrr

126 Mass. 256, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 227
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 31, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 126 Mass. 256 (Commonwealth v. Worcestrr) 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. Worcestrr, 126 Mass. 256, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 227 (Mass. 1879).

Opinion

Ames, J.

The instructions given by the presiding judge were correct. The purchase of a meal includes all the articles that go to make up the meal. It is wholly immaterial that no specific price is attached to those articles separately. If the meal included intoxicating liquors, the purchase of the meal would be a purchase of the liquors. It would be immaterial that other articles were included in the purchase, and all were charged in one collective price. If a dealer should undertake to present a glass of liquor to everybody who should purchase some small article of him, it would be considered a mere evasion of the law prohibiting the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquors. As to the instruction which the court was requested to give, if its natural import was not that there was no sale of liquors in this case, if they were furnished as incident to and a part of the meal, and thus paid for, it was at least equivocal, and liable to be so understood by the jury. The judge, therefore, was not bound to give it in the language suggested to him. The instruction which he did give was correct, and contained all that the defendant was entitled to upon that subject.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Ennabe v. Manosa
319 P.3d 201 (California Supreme Court, 2014)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1992
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1992
Commonwealth v. Moriarty
40 N.E.2d 307 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Stanfield ex rel. Stanfield v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
53 P.2d 878 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1936)
Commonwealth v. Penn-Harris Hotel Co.
21 Pa. D. & C. 460 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1934)
West v. Katsafanas
162 A. 685 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
State v. Grays Harbor Commercial Co.
214 P. 13 (Washington Supreme Court, 1923)
Greenwood v. John R. Thompson Co.
213 Ill. App. 371 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1919)
Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co.
120 N.E. 407 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
People v. . Clair
116 N.E. 868 (New York Court of Appeals, 1917)
State v. Wenzel
56 A. 918 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1903)
Commonwealth v. Warren
36 N.E. 308 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 Mass. 256, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-worcestrr-mass-1879.