Commonwealth v. Butts

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Butts

124 Mass. 449, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 349

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 2, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 124 Mass. 449 (Commonwealth v. Butts) 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.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Butts, 124 Mass. 449, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 349 (Mass. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Sottle, J.

The motion to quash the indictment was properly denied. Where all the articles alleged to have been stolen are hi one kind, the allegation may be “ divers,” “ divers and sundry,” or “ a quantity,” without stating any specific number, with an averment of the aggregate value of the whole. Commonwealth v. Sawtelle, 11 Cush. 142. Commonwealth v. O'Connell, 12 Allen, 451. Commonwealth v. Hussey, 111 Mass. 432. Commonwealth v. Green, 122 Mass. 333. An offence was therefore charged in the indictment with sufficient definiteness.

There was no variance between the allegation and the proof as to the character of the property stolen. A bank-bill is a promissory noté, as is manifest from the fact that it is the promise of the banking corporation to pay the bearer of the instrument a certain sum of money on demand. And it has been repeatedly decided that, under statutes for counterfeiting or for uttering forged promissory notes, indictments are sustained by [453]*453proof of counterfeiting or of uttering forged bank-bills. Commonwealth v. Simonds, 14 Gray, 59. Commonwealth v. Woods, 10 Gray, 477. Commonwealth v. Carey, 2 Pick. 47. The notes stolen might have been described in the indictment either as bank-notes or as promissory notes. The latter description is the more general, and includes the former. The evidence would support the charge in either form of statement. Commonwealth v. Hussey, and Commonwealth v. Green, ubi supra.

The notes having been entrusted to the cashier to be conveyed to the bank, he had a special property in them, which supported the allegation of ownership. Gen. Sts. a. 172, § 12. If they were in his possession and custody when stolen, the allegations in the indictment, both as to the ownership and the possession, were sustained. Whether this was so or not was a question for the jury. The exceptions show that it was submitted to them. We do hot understand that the bill of exceptions purports to set forth the instructions of the court in full, but only so much as to show a ruling that there was evidence on which it would be competent for them to find a verdict against the defendant. This ruling was unquestionably correct. If the defendant was dissatisfied with the terms in which the ruling was made, he should have excepted thereto, and spread them on the record. If he wished for further rulings, he should have asked for them.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Sottle, J.

The motion to quash the indictment was properly denied. Where all the articles alleged to have been stolen are hi one kind, the allegation may be “ divers,” “ divers and sundry,” or “ a quantity,” without stating any specific number, with an averment of the aggregate value of the whole. Commonwealth v. Sawtelle, 11 Cush. 142. Commonwealth v. O'Connell, 12 Allen, 451. Commonwealth v. Hussey, 111 Mass. 432. Commonwealth v. Green, 122 Mass. 333. An offence was therefore charged in the indictment with sufficient definiteness.

There was no variance between the allegation and the proof as to the character of the property stolen. A bank-bill is a promissory noté, as is manifest from the fact that it is the promise of the banking corporation to pay the bearer of the instrument a certain sum of money on demand. And it has been repeatedly decided that, under statutes for counterfeiting or for uttering forged promissory notes, indictments are sustained by [453]*453proof of counterfeiting or of uttering forged bank-bills. Commonwealth v. Simonds, 14 Gray, 59. Commonwealth v. Woods, 10 Gray, 477. Commonwealth v. Carey, 2 Pick. 47. The notes stolen might have been described in the indictment either as bank-notes or as promissory notes. The latter description is the more general, and includes the former. The evidence would support the charge in either form of statement. Commonwealth v. Hussey, and Commonwealth v. Green, ubi supra.

The notes having been entrusted to the cashier to be conveyed to the bank, he had a special property in them, which supported the allegation of ownership. Gen. Sts. a. 172, § 12. If they were in his possession and custody when stolen, the allegations in the indictment, both as to the ownership and the possession, were sustained. Whether this was so or not was a question for the jury. The exceptions show that it was submitted to them. We do hot understand that the bill of exceptions purports to set forth the instructions of the court in full, but only so much as to show a ruling that there was evidence on which it would be competent for them to find a verdict against the defendant. This ruling was unquestionably correct. If the defendant was dissatisfied with the terms in which the ruling was made, he should have excepted thereto, and spread them on the record. If he wished for further rulings, he should have asked for them.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Mass. 449, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-butts-mass-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack