144 Mass. 356 | Mass. | 1887
The defendant and his partner in business made a joint application to the mayor and aldermen of the city of Waltham for a license to sell intoxicating liquors, an order granting such license was adopted by the' aldermen, and a license was made -out and signed by the mayor and city clerk on May 15, 1886, and the defendant notified thereof. The defendant’s partner refused to sign the bond required by the statute, and on May 25 retired from the business. After that, the defendant offered his bond with sureties, which the city treasurer refused to receive unless the co-licensee should be a coobligor. The defendant then applied to the aldermen to have the license issued to him as licensee, and it was ordered that the license granted to the partners should be issued to the defendant, upon his paying the fee and giving his bond. On the next day, July 10, the city treasurer accepted and approved the bond of the defendant, which was identical with the bond before presented by him except in the date, and the defendant paid the fee, and the license, dated May 15, was issued to him.
The defendant was convicted of keeping liquors for sale unlawfully on July 4 ; and the question is, whether he was then authorized by his license to keep liquors for sale. The license put in evidence by the defendant was dated May 15, and, as ruled by the court, was prima facie evidence of authority to sell on July 4. But we think that it was clearly competent for the Commonwealth to prove that the bond was not given, the license fee was not paid, and the license was not issued until July 10, after the time of the alleged offence. The authority granted by the license arises upon the issuing of the written license, and not
Exceptions overruled.