
    Commonwealth vs. Bridget Eagan.
    Middlesex.
    January 27, 1890.
    February 4, 1890.
    Present: Field, Devens, W. Allen, C. Allen, & Knowlton, JJ.
    
      Intoxicating Liquors — Common Nuisance — Evidence — General Reputation.
    
    At the trial of a complaint under the Pub. Sts. c. 101, §§ 6, 7, for keeping a common nuisance, after evidence tending to prove the guilt of the defendant, the defendant asked a witness who lived in the vicinity, “What was the general reputation of the place or tenement kept by the defendant in the neighborhood ” during the time alleged 1 Held, that the question was rightly excluded.
    Complaint for keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, to wit, a tenement in Newton used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors.
    
      At the trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., there was evidence tending to prove the guilt of the defendant. The defendant called as a witness a person who lived near the tenement in question, and, after examining her as to her knowledge of the premises and her opportunities for observing them, asked her, “ What was the general reputation of the place or tenement kept by the defendant in the neighborhood where she resided during the period covered by this complaint? ” The judge, upon objection by the government, excluded the question.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      II. N. Allin, for the defendant.
    
      A. J. Waterman, Attorney General, ¿f- H. A. Wyman, Second Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

The question concerning the general reputation of the tenement kept by the defendant was rightly excluded.

Exceptions overruled.  