History
  • No items yet
midpage
Commonwealth v. Hoar
121 Mass. 375
Mass.
1876
Check Treatment
Gray, C. J.

The court to which the complaint is addressed is duly designated in the complaint and in the record as “ the Municipal Court of the Brighton District of the city of Boston, holden in said Brighton District for the transaction of criminal business.” St. 1874, c. 271, §§ 14, 15. The addition of the words “ within and for the county of Suffolk ” does not imply that the court had jurisdiction to try offences committed anywhere in the county. The allegation that the defendant’s of-fence was committed “ within the judicial district of said court ” shows that it was committed in a part of the county of which the court had full jurisdiction.

The offence was charged in usual and legal form. The instruction requested was rightly refused. A single sale of intoxicating liquors at a public house does tend to prove an exposing and keeping of such liquors for sale; and in this case there was ample evidence of the offence. Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Hoar
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Dec 2, 1876
Citation: 121 Mass. 375
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.