
    Commonwealth vs. John Hogan.
    Conviction of being a common seller of intoxicating liquors is no bar to conviction, under Gen. Sts. c. 87, of maintaining a common nuisance by keeping a tenement used for such illegal sale, although the same evidence of the same illegal sales is relied on to prove both offences.
    Indictment, under Gen. Sts. c. 87, for keeping a liquor nuisance. The defendant was the same as in the previous case of Commonwealth v. Hoga/n. At the trial in the superior court the testimony was the same as in that case, except that it appeared in evidence that in the room of the defendant’s house where the parties played cards there was a bed and a table but no bar.
    The defendant requested the judge to rule that if the evidence on the indictment for being a common seller was in all respects the same as to time, place and circumstances, the defendant could not be convicted and sentenced on both indictments. But Devens, J. ruled that the offence under the first indictment was a different and distinct offence from that under this indictment and was distinctly punishable and might be so prosecuted. A verdict against the defendant was. had under these rulings; and he alleged exceptions. The record and exceptions in the previous case were made matter for reference in this case.
    
      C. Delano, for the defendant.
    
      C Allen, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   Hoar, J.

The offence of maintaining a common nuisance by keeping a tenement used for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, is a wholly distinct offence from that of the sale of such liquors ; and the conviction of one is no bar to a conviction of the other, although evidence of the same sales of liquor may be relied on to prove each.

The seller of the liquor is punishable. The keeper of the tenement used for the illegal sale is punishable. If the seller and the keeper is the same person, then that person commits both offences and incurs both penalties. Commonwealth v. Bub ser, 14 Gray, 83. Commonwealth v. O’Donnell, 8 Allen, 548 Commonwealth v. Cutler, 9 Allen, 486. Commonwealth v. Harris 13 Allen, 534. Exceptions overruled 
      
       A similar decision was made in the cases of Commonwealth vs. Bartholomew Cotter and Commonwealth vs. Ferdinand Dickinson, argued at October term 1867 for Worcester by G. F. Ferry for the defendants, and C. Allen, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
     