| Mass. | Oct 21, 1886
If we assume, in favor of the defendant, that the officer testified that the tumbler which he seized contained intoxicating liquor, his testimony was competent, without producing the liquor, or accounting for its absence. Such testimony is not secondary evidence, within the rule that the best evidence must be produced unless destroyed or otherwise accounted for. Commonwealth v. Blood, 11 Gray, 74. Commonwealth v. Pope, 103 Mass. 440" date_filed="1869-11-15" court="Mass." case_name="Commonwealth v. Holmes">103 Mass. 440.
Exceptions overruled.