The only exception argued relates to the admission of evidence of what the defendant said about six weeks after the time at which he was charged with keeping intoxicating liquors with intent unlawfully to sell them. A deputy marshal of the United States went to his house, and in reply to a question told him he was wanted for a violation of the United States revenue laws, in selling intoxicating liquors without having paid a United States revenue tax. He replied, “ I meant to have paid it, and will do it now.” He inquired how much the fine would probably be, and counted out the money and offered to pay it. This was in the nature of an admission that he had been selling intoxicating liquors at some time before. In connection with the other evidence against him it was competent.* Although the time to which the admission related was not definitely fixed, the statement was made not very long after the time of the alleged illegal keeping, and it was within the discretion of the presiding justice to decide that it was not too remote. Commonwealth v. Finnerty, 148 Mass. 162. Commonwealth v. Hurley, 158 Mass. 159. Commonwealth v. Neylon, 159 Mass. 541.

*148The term “intoxicating liquors” must be presumed to have been used in its ordinary sense, and to have referred to liquors the sale of which without a license is unlawful.

jExceptions overruled.