| Mass. | Nov 30, 1891
Upon the agreed facts, the sales to the defendant were completed in New Hampshire, by the delivery to the carrier there. Orcutt v. Nelson, 1 Gray, 536. Frank v. Hoey, 128 Mass. 263" date_filed="1880-01-28" court="Mass." case_name="Frank v. Hoey">128 Mass. 263. The validity of the sales must, therefore, be determined by the laws of that State. Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374" date_filed="1878-09-12" court="Mass." case_name="Milliken v. Pratt">125 Mass. 374. The sales were made in Portsmouth. Under the statutes of New Hampshire, which were referred to, sales of ale were unlawful only in towns which had passed a vote to that effect. Gen. Laws of N. H. of 1878, c. 109, §§ 15, 19. There is nothing to show that such a vote had been passed in Portsmouth. Prima facie, the sales were legal. The burden of proof was on the defendant to show that they were illegal. Trott v. Irish, 1 Allen, 481. Wilson v. Melvin, 13 Gray, 73. Brigham v. Potter, 14 Gray, 522. There was no proof, and there is no presumption, of illegality; therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover.
Judgment for the plaintiff.