
    Commonwealth vs. William Sheehan.
    After judgment rendered by a police court on a complaint on the St. of 1869, c. 416, § 36, for keeping intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, it is too late to object that the complaint omits to negative the innocent purposes for which the liquor might have been kept for sale.
    Complaint on the St. of 1869, e. 415, § 36, to the police court of Milford, that William Sheehan, on October 21, 1869, “at Milford aforesaid, unlawfully did keep intoxicating liquor, with intent unlawfully to sell the same in said Commonwealth, he, the said William Sheehan, not being then and there authorized to sell the same in said Commonwealth by any legal authority whatever.” The defendant was adjudged guilty, and appealed.
    In the superior court, on the appeal, the defendant moved that the complaint be dismissed, “ bécause the same is insufficient in law, does not describe any offence, and is not in legal form.” Dewey, J., overruled the motion; the jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      
      H. B. Staples, (F. P. Goulding with him,) for the defendant,
    argued that the complaint was defective in omitting to aver, as in the form given in the St. of 1869, a. 415, § 66, that the defendant was not authorized to sell the intoxicating liquor for any purpose under the provisions of the statute; and that this defect was not cured by the use of the term “ unlawfully,” but was fatal.
    
      C. Allen, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth, cited the St. of 1864, e. 250, § 2.
    
      
       “ Whoever owns, possesses or keeps any spirituous or intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell the same contrary to the provisions of this act,” shall be fined and imprisoned, &c.
    
   By the Court.

The objection was taken too late.

Exceptions overruled.  