
    Commonwealth vs. Andrew Finnegan.
    An indictment on the Gen. Sts. c. 87, §§ 6, 7, for keeping a tenement used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquor, is supported by proof of keeping a tenement used for either purpose.
    Indictment on the Gen. Sts. c. 87, §§ 6, 7, for keeping and maintaining a tenement in Canton, used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquor. At the trial in the superior court 'in Norfolk, before Wilkinson, J., the defendant requested the judge to instruct the jury “ that a conviction would not be warranted by proof that the defendant kept the place for the purpose of making illegal sales of intoxicating liquor, but that the evidence must be sufficient to establish the illegal keeping for sale of such liquor.” The judge refused so to instruct the jury, and instructed them that, if the defendant kept the place for either of the purposes named in the indictment, they would be authorized to convict him. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      W. E. Jewell, for the defendant.
    
      C. E. Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

The bill of exceptions does not show any error in the instructions upon any point made at the trial. The instruction requested was rightly refused. The indictment charged the defendant with keeping a tenement used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors, and would be supported by proof of keeping a tenement used for either of the purposes thus alleged, and so the jury were instructed. Commonwealth v. Welsh, 1 Allen, 1. Commonwealth v. Carolin, 2 Allen, 169. Commonwealth v. Heffron, 102 Mass. 148.

Exceptions overruled.  