
    Commonwealth vs. Certain Intoxicating Liquors, Davis Locke, claimant.
    Middlesex.
    November 26, 1888.
    December 3, 1888.
    Present: Morton, C. J., Field, C. Allen, Holmes, & Knowlton, JJ.
    
      Intoxicating Liquors — Forfeiture — Special Verdict.
    
    At the trial of a complaint for the forfeiture of liquors, the jury were asked, in writing, whether any of the liquors named in the complaint and described in the officer’s return upon the warrant were owned or kept by the person complained against at the place alleged, for the purpose of being sold contrary to the provisions of the Pub. Sts. c. 100, to which the jury replied, “ All kept for sale.” Held, that the question and answer taken together sufficiently showed that the liquors were kept for sale contrary to law.
    Complaint, on the Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 80, to the Third District Court of Eastern Middlesex, alleging that on May 24,1887, certain intoxicating liquors were kept and deposited by Davis Locke in certain buildings in Cambridge with intent to sell the same in this Commonwealth. The return of the officer upon the warrant duly issued qpon the complaint set forth that he had searched the premises and seized upon the warrant certain liquors which were described. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Thompson, J., the following issue in writing was submitted to the jury: “ Were any part, and, if so, what part, of the liquors described in the officer’s return upon the warrant and named in said complaint, at the time of the making of said complaint, owned or kept by the person named in said complaint, in the premises described in said complaint, for the purpose of being sold contrary to the provisions of chapter 100 of the Public Statutes of this Commonwealth.”
    
      To this issue the jury replied as follows: “All kept for sale.”
    Locke, who appeared as a claimant of the liquors, thereupon filed a motion for a return of the liquors as follows: “ It not appearing by the verdict of the jury that said intoxicating liquors seized were kept or deposited for sale contrary to law, the above named Davis Locke, claimant, now moves the court that the said court issue a written order to the officer having the said liquors in custody to return the same, with the vessels in which they are contained, to the place from which they were taken.”
    The motion was overruled; the liquors were adjudged to be forfeited; and the claimant alleged exceptions.
    
      G. F. Piper, for the claimant.
    
      A. J. Waterman, Attorney General, & H. A. Wyman, Second Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   C. Allen, J.

The answer of the jury is to be taken in connection with the question submitted to them; and, so construed, it sufficiently shows that the liquors were kept for sale contrary to law. In Commonwealth v. Dooly, 6 Gray, 360, no special issue was submitted to them in writing, and their finding stood alone. Exceptions overruled.  