
    Commonwealth vs. William T. Patten.
    Middlesex.
    March 31, 1890.
    June 17, 1890.
    Present: Field, Devens, W. Allen, C. Allen, & Knowlton, JJ.
    
      Intoxicating Liquors — Evidence — Labels — Exceptions.
    
    A bill of exceptions alleged at the trial of a complaint on the Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 17, for unlawfully bringing intoxicating liquors into a city for illegal sale, recited that the government was allowed to put in evidence tags bearing certain names and printed words, found either in the bottom of the defendant’s wagon or removed from cases therein containing such liquors; but did not show what words and names were upon the tags. Held, that the evidence, if material, was competent.
    Complaint on the Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 17, for unlawfully bringing into the city of Cambridge for illegal sale there certain intoxicating liquors.
    Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who, after a verdict of guilty, allowed a bill of exceptions, which, after reciting the finding by police officers of such liquors in a dwelling-house in Cambridge, just delivered there from a wagon of the defendant, as well as the finding of other such liquors in cases in the wagon itself, concluded as follows : “ Said officers also produced at the trial certain tags, some of which the officers testified were removed by them from said cases in said wagon, and others were found in the bottom of said wagon. It appeared that said tags bore certain names and printed words. The government offered said tags in evidence. The defendant objected. The court ruled that the tags were admissible in evidence; and the defendant, being aggrieved by said ruling, alleged exceptions.”
    
      T. J. G-argan S¡- P. M. Keating, for the defendant.
    
      A. J. Waterman, Attorney General, II. A. Wyman, Second Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   W. Allen, J.

The exceptions do not show what names and words were upon the tags, and it does not appear that the evidence was not wholly immaterial. If material, it was competent. Commonwealth v. Blood, 11 Gray, 74. Commonwealth v. Jennings, 107 Mass. 488. Commonwealth v. Dearborn, 109 Mass. 368.

Exceptions overruled.  