Commonwealth v. Bulman

118 Mass. 456, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 400
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 22, 1875·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

Under an indictment at common law, such as this is, for keeping a disorderly house, it is no variance that the defendant kept only a single room. Regina v. Pierson, 1 Salk. 382; S. C. 2 Ld. Raym. 1197. The common law knows no such offence as keeping a “ disorderly tenement.” Commonwealth v. Wise, 110 Mass. 181. The decision in Commonwealth v. McCaughey, 9 Gray, 296, was under a statute which prohibited the keeping of “ all buildings, places or tenements,” used for certain unlawful purposes, and was thereby held to have made a distinction between “ buildings ” and “ tenements.” Gen. Sts. c. 87, § 6. Commonwealth v. Godley, 11 Gray, 454. Commonwealth v. Shattuck, 14 Gray, 23. Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Bulman, 118 Mass. 456, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 400 (Mass. 1875).

118 Mass. 456 (Commonwealth v. Bulman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wangsness v. McAlpine
199 N.W. 478 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1924)
Ingersoll v. Ingersoll
36 N.J. Eq. 127 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1882)