
    Commonwealth vs. Patrick O’Brien.
    On the trial of an indictment for keeping a disorderly house, evidence of the doors being broken while the defendant occupied the house is admissible.
    Indictment for keeping a disorderly house. At the trial in the court of common pleas in Hampden, the district attorney called a witness, who testified that he let the house to the defendant; and, in order to show the disorderly conduct of those who resorted to the house, asked the witness, whether there had been any injury done to the house during the time for which it had been occupied by the defendant, (and which was covered by the indictment,) and whether his attention had been called to it. The defendant objected to the question. But Morris, J., (upon being assured by the district attorney that he expected to show that the injuries were done by persons who frequented the defendant’s house,) overruled the objection, and allowed the question to be put. And the witness testified “ that, on one occasion, he found the doors broken in the house, and the defendant told him he would repair them if he would not do or say anything about it.” The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      E. W. Bond, for the defendant.
    
      D. W. Alvord, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

The defendant, though not the owner of the house, was in the possession and occupation of it, and therefore responsible for the manner in which it was kept. The usual evidence to prove that a house is disorderly is of such noise in the house as to make it a nuisance; but it may also be incidentally shown by proof of quarrelling and fighting, or of breaking in by persons whom it is attempted to keep out, or breaking out by those whom it is attempted to keep in. The evidence was therefore properly admitted. Exceptions overruled.  