Case ID: mass_77/html/0458-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Metcalf, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth vs. Henry Leonard
    An indictment or complaint, which charges the defendant with unlawfully selling “ intoxicating liquors, and mixed liquors part of which was intoxicating,” is supported by proof of a sale of intoxicating liquors.
    Complaint on St. 1855, c. 215, § 15, averring, in due form, that the defendant unlawfully sold “ intoxicating liquors, and mixed liquors part of which was intoxicating.”
    At the trial in the court of common pleas in Bristol, the Commonwealth proved one sale of gin. The defendant contended that there was a variance between the indictment and the proof, because the government had proved a sale of intoxicating liquors only, and not of mixed liquors also. But Scmger, J. instructed the jury that proof of a sale of gin by the defendant would support the complaint. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      J. Brown, for the defendant.
    S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   Metcalf, J.

This case falls under the established rule of evidence in criminal cases, that it is not necessary to prove the offence, charged in a complaint or indictment, to the whole extent laid ; but that it is sufficient for the prosecutor to prove so much of the charge as constitutes a substantive offence therein specified. 2 Russell on Crimes, (7th Amer. ed.) 789,790. This rule has repeatedly been recognized in this commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Livermore, 4 Gray, 19. Commonwealth v. Burns, 9 Gray, 287. Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 7 Gray, 50.

Exceptions overruled.