
    Commonwealth vs. Charles Mahony.
    On a trial for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors, in violation of St. 1865, c. 215, $ 17, the defendant has no ground of exception to an instruction that the government must prove three several sales, but need not “ prove by direct evidence any sale of intoxicating liquor; but if the evidence, positive and circumstantial, offered by the government, tending to prove sales, and that there was a bar, bottles containing liquors, tumblers and other things of like character in the defendant’s shop, satisfied them that the defendant made as many as three sales during the time alleged, it was competent to find him guilty.”
    Complaint for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors, in violation of St. 1855, c. 215, § 17. Trial in the court of common pleas in Middlesex at October term 1858, before Aiken, J., who signed this bill of exceptions:
    “ The defendant’s counsel contended that the jury should be satisfied that the government had proved three several sales of intoxicating liquors; and the court did so rule; and also instructed the jury that it was not necessarily incumbent upon the government to prove by direct and positive evidence any sale of intoxicating liquor; but if the evidence, positive and circumstantial, offered by the government, tending to prove sales, and that there was a bar, bottles containing liquors, tumblers and other things of the like character in the defendant’s place of business, satisfied them that the defendant had made as many as three sales during the time alleged, that then it was competent to find the defendant guilty of being a common seller. The defendant, being found guilty, and feelipg aggrieved by the above ruling, excepts thereto.”
    
      W. P. Webster, for the defendant.
    
      S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   Dewey, J.

The ruling of the court as to the evidence necessary to convict a-party charged with the offence of being a common seller of spirituous liquors was correct. Commonwealth v. Tubbs, 1 Cush. 2. Exceptions overruled.  