TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth v. Jones

Commonwealth v. Dean S. Jones

Commonwealth v. Jones, 29 N.E. 467 (Mass. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1892
Judges
Allen
Citations
29 N.E. 467155 Mass. 1701892 Mass. LEXIS 274
Headnotes
Intoxicating Liquors — Cross-examination — Contradiction of Witness. The testimony of government witnesses in support of a complaint for unlawfully exposing and keeping for sale intoxicating liquors on a certain day, elicited on cross-examination, denying that they were intoxicated at any time other than that in question respecting which they testified in chief, is immaterial, and evidence contradicting the same is properly excluded.
Summary
Complaint for unlawfully exposing and keeping for sale intoxicating liquors, at Lowell, on September 22, 1890. At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Bond, J., the government introduced in evidence the testimony of two witnesses which tended to prove the commission by the defendant of the offence charged on the day alleged. On cross-examinatian these witnesses were asked if at another time and place in Lowell they were not grossly intoxicated, and both witnesses denied that they were in any such condition at such time and place. The defendant then offered to show that both witnesses were at the time and place named in a state of gross intoxication, but the judge ruled that the evidence offered was not competent, and excluded the same; and the defendant excepted. 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 — Allen

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

Allen, J.

The question whether the government witnesses were or were not intoxicated at another time than that respecting which they testified in chief, was immaterial to the issue on the trial. The defendant, having asked the questions on cross-examination, must accept the answers. To introduce other evidence on the subject would raise a false issue.

In the cases cited by the defendant it was only determined that testimony given in chief might be contradicted.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1895: 11922: 218952026peak 1922 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Long115 A. 734 (Vt. 1922)
  2. State v. Edwards210 P. 1079 (Or. 1922)
  3. Commonwealth v. Smith39 N.E. 111 (Mass. 1895)

Most recent

  1. State v. Edwards210 P. 1079 (Or. 1922)
  2. State v. Long115 A. 734 (Vt. 1922)
  3. Commonwealth v. Smith39 N.E. 111 (Mass. 1895)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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