
    Commonwealth vs. Peter Hogan.
    Allowing the district attorney, on the trial in the court of common pleas of a complaint lor unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors on certain recent days, to ask a witness whether he had obtained liquors of the defendant before the trial before the justice, or since the passage (more than two years before) of the act on which he is prosecuted, and before the trial before the justice, is" no ground of exception, unless the defendant at the trial objects to the question as covering some time between the date of the complaint and the first trial.
    Complaint made to a justice of the peace on the 5th of October 1857, for unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors on the 29th and 30th of September 1857.
    The defendant was tried and convicted before the magistrate on the 12th of October 1857, and in the court of common pleas at October term 1857 before Bishop, J., who signed this bill of exceptions:
    “ Samuel H. Colbath was called as a witness, and asked by the district attorney ‘ Whether, at any time prior to the trial before the magistrate, he had procured any liquors of the defendant ? ’ To this question the defendant objected. But the court overruled the objection and the witness then testified.
    “James Warwick was called and asked by the attorney whether, at any time between the 20th of .May 1855 and the trial before the magistrate, he had obtained any liquors of the defendant. This question was allowed by the court under objection, and he also testified. The defendant was found guilty and excepts to the foregoing rulings.”
    
      C. jR. Train, for the defendant,
    cited Commonwealth v. Kelly 10 Cush. 69; Commonwealth v. Pray, 13 Pick. 359.
    
      
      S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   Shaw, C. J.

1. The defendant objects that the question to Colbath, “ Whether, at any time prior to the trial before the magistrate, he had procured any liquors of the defendant,” was too broad, because it might include the seven days which intervened between the day of the complaint and the day of the trial. But this reason was not stated; if it had been, the question might have been qualified. If he had testified that he had, then another question, when ? ” would have set the matter right. The ground of exception cannot be kept back at the trial, and afterwards made here, when it is too late to correct and limit the question.

2. The question to Warwick, whether he had obtained liquors of the defendant at any time Anee the passage of the act on which he was prosecuted, was of the same character, and the objection must be overruled for the same reason.

Exceptions overruled.  