Case ID: mass_78/html/0126-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth vs. Jared P. Whitcomb.
    On the trial of a complaint for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, the only testimony was that of a man who had been arrested for drunkenness, had disclosed the defendant as the one of whom he obtained his liquor, and had thus obtained his discharge. The judge declined to instruct the jury that his evidence should be received with great caution and distrust; and instructed them that they would consider all the circumstances tending to diminish or fortify the credit of the witness, and decide for themselves *ha< confidence should be placed in him. Held, that the defendant had no ground of excep tian.
    Complaint on St. 1855, c. 215, § 15, for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. At the trial in the court of common pleas, the only witness for the Commonwealth testified that he purchased liquor of the defendant, and afterwards, upon the same day, was arrested and taken before the police court on a charge of drunkenness, and that he understood that if he disclosed the name of the person of whom he obtained the liquor by which he was made drunk, he would not be prosecuted, and he accordingly informed the officer that the defendant was the person, and was thereupon discharged.
    The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that “the evidence of this witness, after such proceedings in reference to him, should be received upon this trial with great caution and distrust.” But Perkins, J. declined so to do, and instructed the jury “that they would consider the testimony of this witness, in view of all the circumstances proved or appearing to them, going to diminish or fortify his credit, and judge for themselves what confidence they should repose in him ; that there was no rule of law requiring the court to instruct them that they must receive the testimony of this witness with any peculiar caution or distrust; and that the credit to be given to it was wholly for them to determine.” The defendant was convicted and alleged exceptions.
    
      W. D. Northend, for the defendant.
    
      S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

The evidence was rightly submitted to the jury. The judge was not obliged to make comments upon it.

Exceptions overruled.