Metcalf v. Weed

The question whether a search-warrant sufficiently describes the place to be searched is a question of fact, to be determined at the trial term.

Trespass quare clausum. Plea, the general issue, with a brief statement alleging that the acts complained of were done by the defendant as a deputy sheriff in the service of a search-warrant. Facts found by the court. Upon a complaint charging Parker Metcalf (the plaintiff’s husband) with keeping spirituous liquors for sale, and alleging that the complainant has “ probable cause to believe and does believe that certain spirituous and intoxicating liquors, viz., rum, whiskey, gin, and brandy, and ale, and certain casks, jugs, bottles, measures,, and other things adapted for the illegal keeping and sale of such liquors, are kept upon the premises now occupied by said Parker Metcalf,” a warrant annexed to the complaint, and referring to it, commanding the officer “ to enter in the daytime the said house and premises of the said Parker Metcalf and there diligently search for the said rum,” etc., was issued, and placed in the hands of the defendant for service. The acts complained of were done by the defendant in the execution of this process; and if the warrant sufficiently describes the place to be searched, they were lawfully and properly done. For several years prior to April 23,1881, Parker Metcalf owned and carried on the premises as a hotel. On that day he conveyed the property to one Dean, who never took possession, and a few days later conveyed the same to the plaintiff,who took control of the hotel, made her son Henry manager, and had a register, bill-heads, and letter envelopes headed “Eagle Hotel, Henry Metcalf, Manager.” The bills were made and receipted, and the business of the hotel conducted, under this name. The plaintiff kept it insured, had it taxed to her, paid the taxes, did other acts of a like character, and openly claimed to be the owner and occupier in her own right. At the end of five years her son Charles succeeded Henry as manager, and he and his mother have ever since occupied and managed the hotel as she and Henry did during the five previous years. After the plaintiff’s purchase in 1881, Parker Metcalf did not claim to own, control, or manage the hotel. He , lived there with his wife, doing under her and her sons’ direction some work on the land, about the barn, and when the sons were away had the keys and waited upon the guests in the house. He had no other home. He had a contract to carry the mail between the post-office and cars, and usually carried the guests to and from the station. The defendant offered to inquire of witnesses as follows: Who did you understand owned and occupied the Eagle Hotel property on the 3d day of February, 1888 ? The court ruled that witnesses might state all the facts known to them as to the ownership or occupancy of the premises, but not their opinions or understanding, and the defendant excepted. Evidence that Parker Metcalf, at the March term, 1888, pleaded nolo contendere to five indictments for illegally selling liquors prior to the first day of that term, was rejected, subject to the defendant’s exception.