
    Commonwealth vs. John Carroll.
    At the trial, on appeal from a jnstice of the peace, of a complaint for a single sale ot intoxicating liqnors, if the evidence corresponds with the allegations in the complaint, the jury may, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presume the offence proved to be the same as that proved before the magistrate; although there is evidence of other sales not now relied on by the Commonwealth, which had been introduced at the trial before the magistrate.
    Complaint to a justice of the peace, on St. 1855, c. 215, § 15, for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to John A. Whaley, on the 1st of July 1859.
    • At the trial in the superior court in Bristol, Whaley testified that the defendant made a "sale of intoxicating liquor to him in August 1859; and the district attorney informed the court that he should rely on that sale only. On cross examination, Whaley testified that before the justice of the peace he had testified to three sales by the defendant to him in June, July and August, 1859; and he now testified to the same three sales.
    Upon this evidence the defendant contended that he could not be convicted, unless the jury were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt for which sale he had been convicted before the justice, and found him guilty of the same sale. Morton, J. instructed the jury that if they were satisfied that the defendant made a sale to Whaley in August, they would be authorized to find him guilty, and they did so. The judge reported the case to this court, which, in accordance with Commonwealth v. Hogan, 11 Gray, 315, and Commonwealth v. Burke, 14 Gray, 81 gave Judgment on the verdict.
    
    
      B. Sanford, for the defendant.
    
      S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
     