Commonwealth v. Ackland
This text of 107 Mass. 211 (Commonwealth v. Ackland) 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
It is now contended that, as the witnesses at the trial only spoke of the defendant’s tenement as being at No. 4 India Wharf, there was not sufficient evidence to authorize the jury to find that the place was in Boston. This objection was not distinctly stated at the trial; and if it had been, the jury would have been authorized to find that India Wharf in Boston was referred to, rather than some other place of that name, if there be such a place, in some other city or town.
jExceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
107 Mass. 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-ackland-mass-1871.