Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Ethan A. Crawford
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1857-10
Citations: 9 Gray 128
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Ethan A. Crawford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Ethan A. Crawford.
A complaint on St. 1855, c. 429, which alleges that on Saturday the 2d of August the defendant did keep a billiard room, and “ did then and there ” suffer certain persons to play at billiards in said room a after the hour of six of the clock in the afterrioon of” said Saturday, sufficiently defines the time. "
Complaint on St. 1855, c. 429, which imposes a punishment on “ the keeper, for the time being, of any billiard room or table, who shall suffer any persons to play at the same after six o’clock in the afternoon of Saturday, or after ten o’clock in the afternoon of any other day.”
The complaint alleged that the defendant, “ on Saturday the second day of August in the year eighteen hundred and fifty six,” at Stoneham, did keep a billiard room, “ and was then and there the keeper of said billiard room, and did then and there unlawfully and wilfully permit and suffer ” certain persons “ to play at billiards in said billiard room after the hour of six of the clock in the afternoon of Saturday the second day of August aforesaid.”
The defendant, being convicted in the court of common pleas, moved in arrest of judgment, for uncertainty of the complaint, in not showing that the suffering certain persons to play at billiards, alleged to have been after six o’clock in the afternoon of a Saturday, was before midnight of the Lord’s day following. Perkins, J. overruled the motion, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
P. Haggerty, for the defendant.
J. H. Clifford, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The allegation that the defendant permitted certain persons to play at billiards " after the hour of six of the clock in the afternoon of Saturday the second day of August aforesaid," which, if it stood alone, might be open to the objection of not showing that it was not on any day of the ensuing week, is explained by the previous statement " on Saturday the second day of August " 1856. Exceptions overruled.