it will be helpful to the reader. Among them are some on the law alone.1 1 Connecticut.—Barth v. S., 18 Conn. 432; S. v. Raymond, 24 Conn. 204; S. v. Mosier, 25 Conn. 40; S. v. Brennan's Liquors, 25 Conn. 278; Gray v. Davis, 27 Conn. 447; Hine v. Belden, 27 Conn. 384; S. v. Maxwell, 36 Conn. 157; S. v. Burrows, 37 Conn. 425; S. v. Mead, 46 Conn. 22. And see Boles v. Lynde, 1 Root, 195. Iowa.-Santo v. S., 2 Iowa, 165, [63 Am. D. 487;] Bowen v. Hale, 4 Iowa, 430; Vaughn v. S., 5 Iowa, 369; S. v. Munzenmaier, 24 Iowa, 87; S. v. Harris, 36 Iowa. 136; S. v. Thompson, 44 Iowa, 399; Walker v. Shook, 49 Iowa, 264; Fries v. Porch, 49 Iowa, 351; S. v. Mohr, 53 Iowa, 261. Maine.-S. v. Robinson, 33 Me. 564; S. v. Gurney, 33 Me. 527; Barnett v. S., 36 Me. 198; S. v. Leach, 38 Me. 432; S. v. Moran, 40 Me. 129; Androscoggin R. R. Co. v. Richards, 41 Me. 233; Thurston v. Adams, 41 Me. 419; Gray v. Kimball, 42 Me. 299; S. v. Stevens, 47 Me. 357; S. v. Bartlett, 47 Me. 388; S. v. Kaler, 56 Me. 88; S. v. McCann, 61 Me. 116; S. v. Smith, 61 Me. 386; S. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 61 Me. 520; S. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 63 Me. 121; S. v. Connelly, 63 Me. 212; S. v. Plunkett, 64 Me. 534; S. v. Kenniston, 67 Me. 558; S. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 68 Me. 187; S. v. Grames, 68 Me. 418; S. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 69 Me. 524; S. v. Knowlton, 70 Me. 200; Weston v. Carr, 71 Me. 356; [S. v. Sibly, 84 Me. 461, 24 Atl. R. 940; S. v. Busbey, 84 Me. 457, 24 Atl. R. 940; S. v. Landry, 85 Me. 95, 26 Atl. R. 998; Butler v. Wentworth, 84 Me. 251, 17 L. R. A. 764, 24 Atl. R. 456.] Massachusetts.- Com. v. Edwards, 12 Cush. 187; Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray, 1, [61 Am. D. 381;] Jones v. Root, 6 Gray, 435; Allen v. Staples, 6 Gray, 491; Mason v. Lothrop, 7 Gray, 354; Com. v. Kimball, 7 Gray, 328; Com. v. Timothy, 8 Gray, 480; Down ing v. Porter, 8 Gray, 539; Com. v. Purtle, 11 Gray, 78; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 14 Gray, 375; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 13 Allen, 52; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 13 Allen, 561; Com. v. Commeskey, 13 Allen, 585; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 97 Mass. 332; Com. v. Bentley, 97 Mass. 551; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 97 Mass. 601; Com. v. Chisholm, 103 Mass. 213; Com. v. Desmond, 103 Mass. 445; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 103 Mass. 448; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 103 Mass. 454; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 105 Mass. 181; Com. . Leddy, 105 Mass. 381; Com. v. Cleary, 105 Mass. 384; Com. v. Kimball, 105 Mass. 465; Com. v. Maroney, 105 Mass. 467, note; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 107 Mass. 216; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 107 Mass. 386; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 107 Mass. 396; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 108 Mass. 19; Com. v. Grady, 108 Mass. 412; Com. v. McLaughlin, 108 Mass. 477; Com. v. Hazeltine, 108 Mass. 479; Com. v. Stoehr, 109 Mass. 365; Com. v. Berry, 109 Mass. 366; Com. v. Dearborn, 109 Mass. 368; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 109 Mass. 371; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 109 Mass. 373, note; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 110 Mass. 182; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 110 Mass. 172; Voetsch V. Phelps, 112 Mass. 407; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 113 Mass. 23; Com. v. Haher, 113 Mass. 207; Com. v. Maloney, 113 Mass. 211; Com. v. Hayes, 114 Mass. 282; Com. v. Kenney, 115 Mass. 149; Com. v. Shaw, 116 Mass. 8; Com. v. Doherty, 116 Mass. 13; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 116 Mass. 21, 24, 26, 27; Com. v. McClus key, 116 Mass. 64; Com. v. Mason, 116 Mass. 66; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 116 Mass. 342; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 117 Mass. 427; Com. 2 And it is the same of a § 1058. Intent to sell. The defendant's intent to sell the liquors, and in a manner to violate the law, must be proved.1 Necessarily the evidence of it will in general be circumstantial; as, for example, if he sells some of them, the presumption is that he means to sell the rest. Therefore sales before, after and at the time of the alleged keeping for sale may be shown in proof of the intent to sell. prior or subsequent keeping for sale. sity for the circumstantial evidence to assume this form. "The jury," said Eastman, J., "might be well satisfied of the fact from the manner in which the liquors were kept in the building, or from the declarations of the defendant in regard to them, or from various circumstances which might be supposed, without its being shown that there had been an offer or at v. Davis, 121 Mass. 352; Com. v. McCue, 121 Mass. 358; Com. v. Dolan, 121 Mass. 374; Com. v. Hoar, 121 Mass. 375; Com. v. Hanley, 121 Mass. 377; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 122 Mass. 8, 14, 36; Com. v. Powers, 123 Mass. 244; Com. v. Wallace, 123 Mass. 400; Com. v. Wallace, 123 Mass. 401; Com. v. Newton, 123 Mass. 420; Com. v. Gallagher, 124 Mass. 29; Com. v. Kahlmeyer, 124 Mass. 322; Com. v. Fraher, 126 Mass. 56; Com. v. Byrnes, 126 Mass. 248: Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 128 Mass. 72; Com. v. Sprague, 128 Mass. 75; Com. v. Matthews, 129 Mass. 487; Com. v. Ramsdell, 130 Mass. 68; [Com. v. Atkins, 136 Mass. 160; Com. v. Lalor, 138 Mass. 508; Com. v. Murray, 138 Mass. 498; Com. v. Henderson, 140 Mass. 303, 5 N. E. R. 832; Com. v. Galligan, 144 Mass. 171, 10 N. E. R. 778; Com. v. Chase, 147 Mass. 497, 18 N. E. R. 565; Com. v. Perry, 148 Mass. 160, 19 N. E. R. 212; Com. v. Gavin, 148 Mass. 449, 18 N. E. R. 675; Com. v. Lee, 148 Mass. 8, 18 N. E. R. 586; Com. v. Gillen, 148 Mass. 15, 18 N. E. R. 584; Com. v. Banks, 156 Mass. 233, 30 N. E. R. 104; Com. v. Ahearn, 160 Mass. 300, 35 N. E. R. 853.] [Nebraska.— Hornberger v. S. (Neb.), 66 N. W. R. 23.] New Hampshire.-S. v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; S. v. Rum, 35 N. H. 222; S. v. Barrels of Liquor, 47 N. H. 369; S. v. Colston, 53 N. H. 483; S. v. Keggon, 55 N. H. 19; S. v. Tufts, 56 N. H. 137. Rhode Island.- S. v. Snow, 3 R. L 64; Fenner v. S., 3 R. L. 107; S. v. Campbell, 12 R. I. 147. South Carolina.-Weikman v. City Council, 2 Speers, 371. Vermont.- Lincoln v. Smith, 27 Vt. 328; Gill v. Parker, 31 Vt. 610; S. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 44 Vt. 208; S. v. Hoffman, 46 Vt. 176; S. v. Reynolds, 47 Vt. 297: [S. v. McGuire, 64 Vt. 529, 15 Atl. R. 213.] 1S. v. Harris, 36 Iowa, 136; [S. v. Libby, 84 Me. 461, 24 Atl. R. 940.] 2 Crim. Pro., I, § 1101. 3S. v. Munzenmaier, 24 Iowa, 87; S. v. Raymond, 24 Conn. 204; S. v. Plunkett 64 Me. 534, 539; S. v. Neagle, 65 Me. 468; S. v. Mead, 46 Conn. 22; [Com. v. Vincent, 165 Mass. 18.] 4 S. v. Colston, 53 N. H. 483; [Com. v. Colton, 138 Mass. 500; P. v. Caldwell (Mich.), 65 N. W. R. 213.] 5 Ante, S$ 681, 682; Com. v. MatMissouri.-McCoy v. Zane, 65 Mo. 1. thews, 129 Mass. 487; [Com. v. Moore, 147 Mass. 528, 18 N. E. R. 402.] tempt to sell." That there were found on the premises jugs which recently contained liquors, or that liquors were concealed there, or that packages apparently containing liquor were often consigned to the defendant, or that he kept a saloon, or a public bar and its ordinary accompaniments,— these and other like facts are pertinent to the question of intent, the decision whereof is for the jury.' In Vermont, under the statute of 1852, the finding of liquor in one's house was prima facie evidence of his having it for sale.8 1S. v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422, 427; [Com. v. Meskill, 165 Mass. 142, 42 N. E. R. 562; S. v. Dugan, 52 Kan. 23, 34 Pac. R. 409.] 2 Com. v. Timothy, 8 Gray, 480. 5 Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 107 Mass. 386; [Com. v. Hugo, 164 Mass. 157.] 697 6 Com. v. Wallace, 123 Mass. 401. 7 Com. v. Wallace, 123 Mass. 400; Com. v. Powers, 123 Mass. 244; Com. v. Hayes, 114 Mass. 282; [S. v. Burroughs, 72 Me. 480.] 8 Lincoln v. Sraith, 27 Vt. 328; [S. v. Arie (Iowa), 64 N. W. R. 268; S. v. Hale, 91 Iowa, 367.] § 1059. At common law,- houses wherein are sold intoxicating drinks are indictable only when disorderly. But, - By statutes, with us, this sort of offense has been greatly extended. The statutes are in terms so varying as scarcely to admit of classification; yet, for convenience, How chapter divided. We shall consider, I. The selling of liquor to be drank on the premises; II. Tippling-shops; III. The nuisance of keeping a building for illegal sales; IV. The keeping open of liquor-selling places at forbidden times. I. THE SELLING OF LIQUOR TO BE DRANK ON THE PREMISES. § 1060. Already,-scattered through this chapter and the one before the last, something has been explained on the subject of this sub-title. Terms and effect of provision.- Statutes forbidding the sale of liquor to be drank where sold are indirect prohibitions of tippling-shops. Their terms are various. Generally they make the essence of the offense consist in the seller's intent to have the liquor drank on the premises; so that, as observed in a Tennessee case, if he "did not so intend he would not be guilty, though the purchaser against " his will drank it there. Or, "on the other hand, if he intended it to be drank there he would be guilty, though the purchaser might take it away 1 Ante, § 984; Rex v. Fawkner, 2 8 Blackf. 262; Moore v. S., 12 Ohio Keb. 506, pl. 79. St. 387; Com. v. Moulton, 10 Cush. 2 S. v. Slate, 24 Mo. 530; S. v. Shearer, 404; Noecker v. P., 91 IIL 468. from the place."1 Yet where the statutory expression is, "if the same is drank on or about the premises," a different interpretation is required. The prohibition includes places not under the seller's legal control, if so near and so situated as to be within the mischief to be remedied. But where the purchaser takes the liquor, in the seller's quart measure, to a place out of view on the opposite side of the street, some fifty feet away, and there drinks it in front of another store, the court cannot say, as matter of law, that this place is within the statutory prohibition.3 § 1061. The indictment-may be the same as for simple selling, explained in the chapter before the last, augmented by the allegation of the intent or actual drinking just stated. But this added matter is likewise an added identification of the transaction; so that possibly, by reason of this, the courts may accept as sufficient some of the other allegations in forms less minute than when only the selling is charged. The statutory terms must be duly covered; and, where they were "sell, by retail, wine, ardent spirits or a mixture thereof, to be drank in or at the store or other place of sale," it was adjudged ill to omit the words "by retail," and simply aver that the defendant "did, without license so to do, sell ardent spirits to be drank where sold, in a room occupied by him."7 § 1062. Adequate.- Under a statute making it an offense to sell liquor "if intended to be drank," etc., an indictment was adjudged good which charged that the defendant, at a time and place specified, did unlawfully sell and retail spirituous liquor to a person named, by the quart, to be drank on the premises, and which was then and there drank on the premises, etc., without having obtained a license so to do. "To be drank," 1 Sanderlin v. S., 2 Humph. 315, 319; S. P., Wrocklege v. S., 1 Iowa, 167. 2 Christian v. S., 40 Ala. 376; [Jones v. S., 96 Ala. 56, 11 S. R. 192.] 3 Easterling v. S., 30 Ala. 46; [Whaley v. S., 87 Ala. 83, 6 S. R. 380.] 4 Ante, § 1034b. 5 Ante, § 1037. 6 Overshiner v. Com., 2 B. Monr. 344; Com. v. Pearson, 3 Met. 449; S. v. Auberry, 7 Mo. 304; P. v. Gilkinson, 4 Park. Cr. 26; Com. v. Head, 11 Grat. 819; Kilbourn v. S., 9 Conn. 560; S. v. Freeman, 6 Blackf. 248; Com. v. Stowell, 9 Met. 569; Rawson v. S., 19 Conn. 292; Sanderlin v. S., 2 Humph. 315; [Foreman v. Hunter, 59 Iowa, 466, 13 N. W. R. 659; S. v. Dorr, 82 Me. 341, 19 Atl. R. 861.] 7 Boyle v. Com., 14 Grat. 674; [S. v. Woolsey, 91 Ind. 131.] |