Case Name: Commonwealth vs. John S. Chisholm
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1869-11
Citations: 103 Mass. 213
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. John S. Chisholm.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. John S. Chisholm.
An indictment on the St. of 1868, c. 141, for keeping intoxicating liquors for sale at a certain time and place, the defendant “ not being then and there authorized by law to sell the same in any manner, and not having then and there any license, appointment or authority so to keep for sale or sell said liquors,” sufficiently negatives that the keeping was within the provisos of § 1.
An indictment on the St. of 1868, c. 141, for keeping intoxicating liquors for sale, may charge such keeping with a continuando.
An indictment on the St. of 1868, c. 141, for selling intoxicating liquors at 'a certain time and place, the defendant “ not having then and there any license, authority or appointment according to law, to make such sale,” sufficiently negatives that the sale was within the provisos of § 1.
Indictment on the St. of 1868, c. 141, with three counts ; returned into the superior court at October term 1868. The first count charged that the defendant at Gloucester on June 15, 1868, “ and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the finding of this indictment,” “ unlawfully did keep for sale intoxicating liquors with intent then and there unlawfully to sell the same,” he “ not being then and there authorized by law to sell the same in any manner, and not having then and there any license, appointment or authority so to keep for sale or sell said liquors.” The second and third counts charged him, each with an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to a person unknown, on June 25, 1868, and June 29, 1868, respectively, he “ not having then and there any license, authority or appointment, according to law, to make such sale.” The defendant, pleading not guilty, filed a motion to quash the indictment, “ because neither count of said indictment sufficiently negatives any authority to do the acts charged nor shows that the same were unlawful; because neither count negatives that the acts charged came within the provisos and exceptions in the St. of 1868, c. 141, § 1; and because there is no sufficient allegation of time in the first count.” This motion being overruled by Morton, J., he pleaded guilty, and moved in arrest of judgment for the same reasons; which motion also was overruled, and he alleged exceptions.
W. D. Northend 8f S. B. Ives, Jr., for the defendant.
1. The indictment does not negative that the intoxicating liquors averred to have been sold or kept for sale by the defendant were not sold or kept for sale within the provisos of the St. of'1868, c. 141 § 1. 2. The keeping for sale cannot be charged with a continuando.
C. Allen, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
“ No person shall sell, or expose or keep for sale, intoxicating liquors, unless he is authorized to sell the same in the manner provided in this act: provided, that the maker of cider and native wines may sell the same not to be drunk on his premises; and provided also, that the importer of liquor of foreign production, imported under authority of the laws of the United States, may own, possess, keep or sell the same in the original casks or packages in which it was imported, and in quantities not less than the quantities in which the laws of the United States require such liquor to be imported; and provided further, that nothing herein contained shall apply to sales made by sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, coroners, constables, collectors of taxes, executors, administrators, guardians, assignees in insolvency or bankruptcy, or any othei "erson required by law to sell personal property.”

Opinion:
By the Court.
The offence is sufficiently alleged in the indictment. Exceptions overruled.