
    Commonwealth vs. Alexander Mahar.
    An indictment for stealing in a “ refreshment saloon ” does not show that the larceny was in a building, and the defendant, upon conviction, can only be sentenced for a simple larceny.
    Indictment for larceny “ in the refreshment saloon of Lewis B. Edwards.” The defendant, being convicted in the court of common pleas, moved in arrest of judgment, and alleged exceptions to the overruling of that motion, but now waived his exceptions.
    
      W. Allen, Jr., for the defendant,
    suggested a doubt whether the description in the indictment was sufficient to warrant a sentence for larceny in a building, under St. 1851, c. 156, § 4, because a refreshment saloon might not be in any building, but might be in a vessel, rr «wcp in a mere tent.
    
      D. W. Alvord,
    
    (District Attorney,) for the Commonwealth, argued that the term “ refreshment saloon ” was well understood as indicating a room in a building.
   But the Court,

on the ground that stealing from a refreshment saloon did not necessarily imply stealing from a building, ordered the Defendant to be sentenced for a simple larceny.  