Case ID: mass_108/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Cottrt.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth vs. Bartholomew Kevill.
    The vote of a town or city on the first Tuesday of May 1871, under the St. of 1870, c. 389, not to prohibit the sale of malt liquors there, was limited in its effect by the St. of 1871, c. 334, to the first day of the ensuing July.
    Complaint to the police court of Lynn on July 11,1871, that the defendant on July 8,1871, kept intoxicating liquors in that city for sale contrary to law. Trial and verdict of guilty in the superior court on appeal, before Scudder, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions of which the following is the material part:
    “ It appeared at the trial, that the inhabitants of Lynn, on the first Tuesday of May 1871, at a meeting duly called for that purpose under the St. of 1870, c. 389, § 3, refused to vote that no person should be allowed to sell malt liquors in that city, and did vote that any person should be allowed to sell such liquors there; and that no meeting was called in Lynn under the provisions of the St. of 1871, c. 334, §§ 2, 3, on the first day of July 1871, and no vote was taken by said city whether any person might manufacture, sell, or keep for sale malt liquors there.
    “ There was evidence tending to prove that the defendant, at Lynn, kept ale with intent to sell it in this Commonwealth, after July 1, 1871, and at and about the time alleged m the complaint, contrary to the provisions of the St. of .1869, c. 415, and the St. of 1871, c. 334. He thereupon requested the judge to rule that such keeping of ale was not illegal. But the judge refused so to rule; and instructed the jury that the provisions of the law, as existing in Lynn, did not allow the defendant to keep ale in that city for sale therein after July 1, 1871.”
    
      A. F. L. Norris, for the defendant.
    The vote of the inhabitants of Lynn on the first Tuesday of May 1871, refusing to prohibit the sale of malt Equors there during the ensuing year, was in execution of a power vested in them by the St. of 1870, c. 389, § 3, and its operation as a Ecense during the whole of the year was unaffected by the repeal of that section by the St. of 1871, c. 334, § 4. Art. 2 of Amendments of the Const. of Mass. Nichols v. Bertram, 3 Pick. 342. The second section of the St. of 1871, which provided that any city or town might on July 1, 1871, and thereafter annually on the first Tuesday of May, vote to Ecense the sale of malt Equors tiH the next May, had no effect upon this case, since the inhabitants of Lynn omitted to take any such vote on July 1,1871.
    
      0. Allen, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Cottrt.

It was iEegal to keep ale for sale in Lynn after the first day of July 1871, notwithstanding the vote of the inhabitants of the city on the first Tuesday of May preceding. That vote was had under a law which was repealed by the St. of 1871, c. 334. Exceptions overruled.