
    Commonwealth versus Leonard Dean.
    
      Nov. 1st.
    
    A complaint before a justice of the peace, intended to be the basis of a final judgment, alleging that the defendant, without license, “ did sell spirituous and fermented liquors in a shop used for the purpose of tippling or gaming or in which tippling and gaming is allowed,” was held to be fatally defective, inasmuch as it did not state to whom the sale was made, or that it was made to a person unknown, nor that the quantity sold was either less than twenty-eight gallons or was to be consumed in the shop.
    . This vras a complaint under Revised Stat. c. 47, § 3. It was dated December 13, 1837, and was originally brought before a justice of the peace. It alleged, “ that the said Dean, at said Wrentham, on the seventeenth day of November last past and on divers other days between that day and the day of the date of this complaint, did sell spirituous and fermented liquors in a shop there situated used for the purpose of tippling or gaming or in which tippling and gaming is allowed, not being duly licensed to make such sales, against the peace,” &c The defendant, after conviction, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and a verdict being there found against him, he moved that the complaint be quashed, among other reasons, because it did not allege to whom the liquor was sold. The motion was overruled by Strong J., and exceptions were taken to his decision.
    Wilkinson, in support of the exception,
    cited Commonwealth 
      v. Phillips, 16 Pick. 211 ; Davis’s Justice, 16 ; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 25, § 74, 113 ; 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 284 ; Bac. Indictment, H 3.
    
      Nov. 2d.
    
    Jlustin, Attorney-General, cited Bradstreet v. Furgeson, 17 Wendell, 181.
   Per Curiam.

The complaint is defective in many particulars of substance, and cannot be sustained. Commonwealth v. Phillips, 16 Pick. 211. It does not set forth to whom the liquor was sold, nor that it was sold to a person unknown. Neither does it state the quantity sold ; which may have been twenty-eight gallons, and that to be carried away at one time. The place of sale is said to be used for the purpose of tippling or gaming, but this is merely a description of the shop ; it does not indicate where the liquor was to be used. The complaint ought to show, that the liquor was either sold in a less quantity than twenty-eight gallons, or that it was to be consumed on the defendant’s premises.

Judgment of Court of Common Pleas reversed and proceedings quashed.  