Commonwealth v. Ryan

An indictment on St. 1855, c. 215, § 15, for an unlawful sale of “ intoxicating liquor" need not more particularly describe the kind of liquor sold. . On the trial of an indictment on St. 1855, c. 215, for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, the burden of proving any license, appointment or right to sell, is upon the defendant, by virtue of St. 1844, c. 102.

Indictment on St. 1855, c. 215, § 15, averring that the defendant, on the 1st of July 1856 at Lowell, “ without then and there having any license, appointment or authority therefor first duly had and obtained according to law, did then and there sell to a certain person whose name is Walter P. Bean a certain quantity of intoxicating liquor, to wit, one gill of intoxicating liquor.” After trial if the court of common pleas, Aiken, J. signed this bill of exceptions: “ Before the trial the defendant moved the court that the prosecuting attorney should either furnish a more particular description of the offence intended to be relied upon; or that the indictment be quashed, for reasons set forth in the motion in arrest of.judgment afterwards filed. But the court refused both motions. “ The government introduced evidence tending to show a sale of intoxicating liquor to said Bean, but produced no evidence of any want of license or appointment to make said sale or any want of any authority so to do whatever. The defendant objected that this evidence would not support a conviction. But the court ruled that no evidence of a want of authority or of a want of license or appointment to make such sale was necessary in order to a conviction in this case. “ The defendant, being convicted, moved in arrest of judgment, that the offence was not set out fully and plainly, substantially and formally, but the description thereof was too vague and uncertain. But the court overruled the motion. To these several rulings the defendant excepts.”