
    Commonwealth vs. Eckfield D. Page.
    On a trial for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors on a certain day, a servant ot the defendant, who has testified that no liquors were sold in the defendant’s shop on that day, cannot be asked on cross-examination whether he had seen liquors in the shop after that day.
    Complaint for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to John R. Brooks at Springfield on the 12th of May 1856.
    At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Bishop, J., the only witness called for the Commonwealth was said Brooks, who testified that on said 12th of May he bought a glass of brandy in the defendant’s shop of Edward Ely, a servant of the defendant. There was no evidence of any other sale.
    Ely, being called as a witness by the defendant, testified that he did not sell or supply any liquor to Brooks on said 12th of May. On cross-examination, the district attorney asked him if he saw any liquor in the defendant’s shop on that day; to which he answered that he did not see any liquor in the shop on that day. The district attorney then asked him, if he had seen any liquor in the shop since that day. The defendant objected to the question; but the court allowed it to be put; and Ely stated that he had repeatedly seen liquor in that shop since that day. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      E. W. Bond, for the defendant.
    
      J. H. Clifford, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   Metcalf, J.

We are of opinion that Ely should not have been permitted to testify that he saw liquors in the defendant's shop, after the 12th of May. Such testimony was not admissible for the purpose of proving that liquors were there at an earlier day. Exceptions sustained.  