
    Commonwealth vs. Manuel Lewis.
    Bristol.
    October 23, 1877.
    Lord & Soule, JJ., absent.
    Objections to a complaint, that it does not in terms refer to the statute under which it was brought, nor negative its exceptions, are formal, and cannot, under the St. of 1864, c. 250, § 2, be taken, for the first time, in the Superior Court on appeal
    Complaint to the Third District Court of Bristol, charging that the defendant “ unlawfully did keep intoxicating liquor with intent unlawfully to sell the same in this Commonwealth, he the said Lewis not being then and there authorized to sell the same in this Commonwealth by any legal authority whatever.” In the Superior Court, on appeal, before the jury were empanelled, the defendant for the first time moved to dismiss the complaint for the following reasons :
    “ 1. Because it is nowhere alleged in said complaint that the defendant was not authorized to keep spirituous or intoxicating liquor for sale, under any provision of the St. of 1875, c. 99.
    “ 2. Because said complaint does not allege, as it should, that the defendant was not authorized to keep intoxicating liquor for sale.”
    Pitman, J., overruled the motion. The case was then tried, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant alleged exceptions.
    jET. M. Knowlton, for the defendant.
    
      W. 0. Poring, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth, was not called upon.
   By the Court.

The motion to dismiss was for matter of form, and not of substance, and could not be made for the first Lime in the Superior Court on appeal. St. 1864, c. 250, § 2. Green & Simpson v. Commonwealth, 111 Mass. 417. Commonwealth v. Legassy, 113 Mass. 10, Exceptions overruled.  