Bushman v. Commonwealth
This text of 138 Mass. 507 (Bushman v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
C. Allen, J.
If the various counts in the indictment were intended to charge but a single transaction, namely, the larceny at the same time of the property of several different persons, only one count was necessary. Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 107 Mass. 208. It does not appear on the record in the present case whether the larcenies were or were not distinct. We are not bound to assume that they were one and the same offence, though alleged to have been committed on the same day. No error appears on the record. Carlton v. Commonwealth, 5 Met. 532. Crowley v. Commonwealth, 11 Met. 575. Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 135 Mass. 266. Pettes v. Commonwealth, 126 Mass. 242. Commonwealth v. Hills, 10 Cush. 530.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
138 Mass. 507, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bushman-v-commonwealth-mass-1885.