TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth v. Brown

Commonwealth v. George T. Brown

Commonwealth v. Brown, 124 Mass. 318 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 25, 1878
Judges
Ames
Citations
124 Mass. 3181878 Mass. LEXIS 305
Headnotes
On the trial of a complaint on the Gen. Sts. c. 87, §§ 6, 7, for maintaining a tenement, “used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors,” the testimony of a witness for the government that he saw a license from the United States, authorizing the defendant to sell liquor, hanging upon the wall of the defendant’s har-room, is competent.
Summary
Complaint on the Gen. Sts. e. 87, §§ 6, 7, for keeping and maintaining on August 31,1877, and on divers other days between that day and the date of the complaint, a certain tenement in Haverhill, used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors, the same being a common nuisance. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., one Palmer, a police officer of Haverhill, called as a witness for the government, testified that he went into the defendant’s shop on August 31, and saw the defendant behind the bar or counter, and another person standing in front of the bar; and testified generally as to the appearance of the shop or bar-room, and as to what took place there on that day. The district attorney then asked the witness if he saw a license hanging upon the wall of the bar-room, and he answered that he did. He was then asked what the license was, to whom it was made out, and what was its date. The defendant objected to the admission of this evidence, and contended that it was an attempt to show by paroi the contents of a written instrument; and that the fact that the defendant was licensed to sell intoxicating liquors could only be proved by the record of such license. But the judge overruled the objection; and the witness testified that the license hanging upon the wall was a United States license to the defendant to sell intoxicating liquors, that it acknowledged the receipt of twenty-five dollars from the defendant, and was dated in the year 1877, but the witness could not state the month. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ames

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ames, J.

The written paper in question was hanging upon the wall, and there was no physical difficulty in producing it in *319 court. But it was not a contract, or record; nor was it admitted as a written instrument capable of conveying any property or right to the defendant. It was not even offered for the purpose of proving that he had procured a United States license in fact, but that he professed to have done so. As a part of the description of the place, and of the manner in which it was fitted up, tii 3 witnesses might lawfully describe the various placards or handbills posted or hanging on the wall; for instance, such as enumerated articles for sale, and their prices, and others of a similar character. The paper was merely a notice to all who should visit the place, to the effect that the defendant was licensed. In legal effect, it was the same as if his name had been posted over his counter, followed by the words “licensed victualler,” or “ licensed innholder." Being hung upon the wall as a placard, it might be described as such; and the witness might be allowed to testify that it purported to be a United States revenue license or stamp, and to give the name and the date. Commonwealth v. Powers, 116 Mass. 337 . Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1885–1886: 11891–1892: 21907–1908: 11909–1910: 21923–1924: 11937–1938: 11969–1970: 12019–2020: 118852026peak 1891 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Davidson v. State443 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn. 1969)
  2. Commonwealth v. Stevens29 N.E. 508 (Mass. 1892)
  3. State v. Pappas80 P.2d 770 (Wash. 1938)
  4. People v. Joyce154 Ill. App. 13 (1910)
  5. In re Souza222 P. 869 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  6. Commonwealth v. Sullivan30 N.E. 1023 (Mass. 1892)

Most recent

  1. Commonwealth v. ProiaNo. AC 19-P-602 (Mass. App. Ct. July 27, 2020)
  2. Davidson v. State443 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn. 1969)
  3. State v. Pappas80 P.2d 770 (Wash. 1938)
  4. In re Souza222 P. 869 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  5. People v. Joyce154 Ill. App. 13 (1910)
  6. People v. Peterson153 Ill. App. 480 (1909)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Commonwealth v. Powers, 116 Mass. 337 (1874) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list