Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Anson Lamere
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1858-10
Citations: 11 Gray 319
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Anson Lamere.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Anson Lamere.
On the trial of an indictment on St. 1855, c. 215, § 17, for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors, evidence that the defendant’s shop contained counters, on one of which was “ a pitcher containing something that looked like ale or beer,” and “ a pump which looked like a beer pump,” is admissible for the Commonweath.
An indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors on a day named, and from that day to the day of finding the indictment, is supported by proof of three separate sales within the time alleged.
Indictment, found at October term 1857 of the court of common pleas, and alleging that the defendant on the 1st of July 1857 and from “ said last mentioned day to the day of finding this indictment” was a common seller of intoxicating liquors.
At the trial before Bishop, J., Eben H. Rand testified to a conversation with the defendant in the defendant’s shop at Lowell. The district attorney asked him to describe the fixtures in the shop. This question was objected to; but the objection was overruled ; and the witness answered that he saw a counter on each .side of the room, and “on one counter a pitcher containing something that looked like ale or beer, and a pump which looked like a beer pump.”
The only other evidence of the defendant’s business was evidence of sales of liquor to one Rogers between the end of August and the time of finding the indictment. The defendant asked the judge to instruct the jury that the government were bound to satisfy them that the defendant was a common seller on the first day named in the indictment, or that he bore the character and maintained the business of a common seller through the whole time alleged in the indictment after that day But the judge declined to give this instruction ; and instructed the jury that if they were satisfied that the defendant made three separate sales at any time between the 1st of July and the sitting of the grand jury, it was sufficient to justify them in finding the defendant guilty. The defendant was convicted, and alleged exceptions.
T. II. Sweetser, for the defendant.
S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
By the Court.
1. Rand's testimony was admissible and relevant to the issue, as having some tendency to prove the charge of being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. Indicia of the business or occupation — decanters, glasses, pitchers, &e. — are competent evidence, as forming one step towards the point sought for. Commonwealth v. Blood, ante, 74.
2. The instructions to the jury were correct. All the sales were within the time mentioned in the indictment. The particular time of the sales is not material.
Exceptions overruled.