Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Certain Intoxicating Liquors, Richard Kiely, claimant
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1874-11-05
Citations: 116 Mass. 342
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Certain Intoxicating Liquors, Richard Kiely, claimant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Certain Intoxicating Liquors, Richard Kiely, claimant.
Essex.
November 4.
5, 1874.
Ames & Devens, JJ., absent.
A complaint under the St. of 1869, c. 415, § 44, averred that intoxicating liquor wan kept “ in a certain tenement on Derby Square, and numbered six on said square, and the rooms over the tenement on the first floor, numbered six on said square, the entrance to said rooms being numbered eight on said square.” The warrant issued on this complaint recited the averment of the complaint, and directed the officer to enter and search “ the tenement herein above described.” Held} that the warrant was void.
Complaint to the Police Court of Salem on the St. of 1869, c. 415, § 44, alleging reason to believe and belief that certain intoxicating liquors are kept and deposited in Salem, “ in a certain tenement on Derby Square, and numbered six on said square, and the rooms over the tenement on the first floor, numbered six on said square, the entrance to said rooms being numbered eight on said square.” The warrant issued on this complaint recited the averment of the complaint, and directed the officer “ to enter the tenement herein above described,” and make search, &c, The officer’s return on the warrant stated that he had searched the within described premises,” and had seized therein the liquors described in the warrant.
In the Superior Court, before the jury were empanelled, the claimant moved that the proceedings be dismissed for the following reasons : “1. That there are two different and distinct tenements described in the complaint and warrant, and that the officer’s reten does not show from which of these tenements he seized the liquors described. 2. That the description of the place in the complaint and warrant is ambiguous and uncertain, and that the complaint and warrant are bad for duplicity.” Allen, J., overruled the motion; the defendant was tried and found guilty, and alleged exceptions.
W. D. Northend, for the defendant.
C. R. Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
Gray, C. J.
The complaint described two distinct tenements in which liquors were alleged to be kept; the first, a tenement on Derby Square, numbered six on said square; the second, the rooms over the first, and having an entrance numbered eight on said square. The warrant directed the officer to enter and search " the tenement " so described, and thus authorized him to search only one tenement, leaving it to him to determine which of the two he should search, instead of clearly designating in the warrant the place to be searched, as the law required. The warrant was therefore illegal and void. St. 1869, c. 415, § 46. Commonwealth v. Intoxicating Liquors, 109 Mass. 371. Same v. Same, 115 Mass. 145. Exceptions sustained.