Case Name: Commonwealth vs. James Rhodes
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1888-11-30
Citations: 148 Mass. 123
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. James Rhodes.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. James Rhodes.
Middlesex.
November 26, 1888.
November 30, 1888.
Present: Morton, C. J., Field, C. Allen, Holmes, & Knowlton, JJ.
Intoxicating Liquors — Common Nuisance — Complaint — Place.
A complaint alleging that “ J. R. of W.” on a certain day, “and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of making this complaint, at W. aforesaid, . . . did keep and maintain a certain common nuisance, to wit, a tenement in said W. . . . used for the illegal sale and the illegal keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors,” clearly alleges that the offence was committed in W., and is sufficient.
Complaint to the Second District Court of Eastern Middle-sex, dated November 23, 1887, alleging that “ James Rhodes of Waltham, in said county of Middlesex, on the first day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of making this complaint, at Waltham aforesaid, . . . did keep and maintain a certain common nuisance, to wit, a tenement in said Waltham, then and on said other days and times there used for the illegal sale and the illegal keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors.”
At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before the jury was impanelled, the defendant renewed a motion, which was made and overruled in the District Court, to quash the complaint, for the reason that “ the complaint does not allege any place where the offence was committed on the first day of July.” Thompson, J., overruled the motion.
The defendant was then tried, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty ; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
G. F. Piper, for the defendant.
A. J. Waterman, Attorney General, & H. A. Wyman, Second Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The motion to quash was rightly overruled. The complaint clearly alleges that the offence was committed in Waltham. Exceptions overruled.