Bushman v. Commonwealth

138 Mass. 507, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 240
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 26, 1885·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

Bushman v. Commonwealth, 138 Mass. 507, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 240 (Mass. 1885).

138 Mass. 507 (Bushman v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith
45 A.2d 438 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1946)
Collins v. Commonwealth
51 N.E.2d 973 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
State v. Laws
112 P. 488 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
State v. Mjelde
75 P. 87 (Montana Supreme Court, 1904)
Furnace v. State
54 N.E. 441 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1899)
Benson v. Commonwealth
33 N.E. 384 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)