
    Commonwealth vs. James Meskill.
    Middlesex.
    November 25, 1895.
    —January 3, 1896.
    Present: Field, C. J., Allen, Holmes, Knowlton, & Lathrop, JJ.
    
      Motion to quash Complaint addressed to a District Court.
    
    District Courts as well as the justices of them have power to receive complaints.
    
      It seems, that a motion to quash on the ground that a complaint should have been addressed to the justices of the District Court, instead of to the District Court, comes too late if made for the first time in the Superior Court.
    Complaint to the District Court of Central Middlesex, charging the defendant with maintaining a common nuisance at Maynard, between July 7, 1894, and January 9, 1895. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., the jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The only point argued appears in the opinion.
    
      T. Hillis, for the defendant.
    
      F. N. Wier, District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
   Holmes, J.

The only point argued for the defendant is, that the complaint should have been addressed to the justices of the district court instead of to the district court. It would seem that a motion to quash on this ground, made for the first time in the Superior Court, came too late. Pub. Sts. c. 214, § 25. Commonwealth v. Walton, 11 Allen, 238. Commonwealth v. Harvey, 111 Mass. 420. But if the point may be taken, the answer is that the district court as well as the justices of it had the power to receive complaints. St. 1893, c. 396, §§ 42, 43. St. 1874, c. 315.

Exceptions overruled.  