
    Commonwealth vs. Bridget Leo.
    Evidence of twelve sales of intoxicating liquors within a month is sufficiently definite to warrant a conviction of an unlawful sale.
    Complaint on St. 1855, c. 215, § 15, for an unlawful sale of intoxicating ”liquor to Michael Donovan. At the trial in the court of common pleas, Donovan was the only witness for the Commonwealth, and testified that he boarded with the defendant for a month ending the 18th of January 1858, and during that period purchased gin of the defendant and paid her for it several times; at least twelve times. The defendant did not object to the admissibility of the evidence; but contended that it was too general and indefinite for the jury to convict upon, and that the Commonwealth should prove more specially some act of sale. But Perkins, J. ruled that this evidence was sufficient and competent for the consideration of the jury, and they might convict upon it, if they were satisfied from it, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the offence charged in the complaint. The defendant was convicted, and alleged exceptions.
    
      E. Wilkinson, for the defendant,
    contended that the Commonwealth could not use evidence of a large number of sales as evidence of a single sale, but should have been required to elect a particular sale to rely upon, and cited Rose. Crim. Ev. (2d ed.) 216.
    
      S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   Thomas, J.

The point made by the exceptions in this case is covered by the decision in Commonwealth v. Remby, 2 Gray, 508 Exceptions overruled.  