Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Andrew Murphy; Commonwealth vs. Dennis Ryan
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1858-09
Citations: 11 Gray 53
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Andrew Murphy. Commonwealth vs. Dennis Ryan.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 53–54

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Andrew Murphy. Commonwealth vs. Dennis Ryan.
Under the St of 1855, c. 215, keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell can be punished only on complaint to a justice of the peace or police court, as provided by § 24.
Indictments for keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same within the Commonwealth, not being authorized under St. 1855, c. 215, or by any legal authority whatever, against the peace, and contrary to the force of the statute. The defendants, being convicted in the court of common pleas in Hampshire, each moved in arrest of judgment, upon various grounds, one of which was that that court had no jurisdiction.
W. Allen, Jr., for Murphy.
G. M. Stearns, for Ryan.
S. U. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
By section 3 of the St. of 1855, c. 215, it is made “ unlawful and criminal for any person to own, possess or keep any spirituous or intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell the same in this commonwealth.” By the Rev. Sts. c. 133, § 14, all fines and forfeitures imposed as a punishment may be recovered by indictment in the court of common pleas, or, in some cases, by complaint before a justice of the peace. The jurisdiction conferred on justices of the peace by St. 1855, c. 215, § 24, is concurrent with that of the court of common pleas.

Opinion:
Dewey, J.
The offence charged upon the defendants by this indictment is an offence created solely by the provisions of St. 1855, c. 215, § 24, and the mode of prosecution is also distinctly pointed out by the same statute. Such being the case, that mode alone must be pursued. Commonwealth v. Howes, 15 Pick. 231. Rex v. Robinson, 2 Bur. 799. Stephens v. Watson, 1 Salk. 45. The enactment of the statute is, that on conviction before any justice of the peace, or any police court, having jurisdiction to try criminal offences, the party " shall be fined ten dollars, and pay the costs of prosecution, and shall be imprisoned twenty days in the house of correction." Jurisdiction being thus directly given to the justices of the peace and the police courts, by the only statute making the act punishable, the jurisdiction does not exist in the court of common pleas to proceed against the party by indictment found in that court.
The offences made punishable by the fifteenth and seventeenth sections of this statute are in terms made the subject of proceeding by indictment in the court of common pleas.
Without expressing any opinion upon the other questions discussed at the argument of the present case, the court are of the opinion that the court of common pleas has not an original jurisdiction of the cases made punishable by § 24 of the St. of 1855, c. 215, and judgment must for this cause be arrested.
Judgment arrested