Commonwealth v. Carter

108 Mass. 17
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 Mass. 17 (Commonwealth v. Carter) 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. Carter, 108 Mass. 17 (Mass. 1871).

Opinion

Washington A.

Washburn testified thus: “ I am a police officer of Worcester, and have known the defendant a year and a half. During that time she has been an inmate of a house of ill fame; sometimes at the 6 brick house ’ and sometimes at the ‘ farm.’ ■ I do not know that she has employment. .1 do not know about her means of support. I have seen her, within the time mentioned in the complaint, twice at the house called the ‘ farm,’ which is a house of ill fame, about two or three minutes each time; and three or four other times on the street, walking with other girls from the same institution. When on the street, she was passing along as other people do ; nothing peculiar about her appearance. On my inquiry where she came from, she said she had no relatives here, but her folks lived in Canada. When 1 arrested her, I found her concealed under the attic roof of the house called the ‘farm,’ thirty or forty feet from the light.”

James M. Drennan testified “ that he had known the defendant a year or more; saw her once, within the time mentioned in the complaint, at the ‘ farm,’ about five minutes or so ; that there she was doing nothing particular; did not remember whether it was in the daytime or evening; had seen her walking on the street; and never saw her doing anything.”

George Harrington testified “ that he was a hack-driver; had been to the' ‘ farm ’ frequently; did not know that he saw the defendant there during the time mentioned in the complaint; but had seen her at the ‘ farm ’ once or twice in the evening; that she was there doing nothing.”

The defendant requested the judge to rule that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction; but he refused to do so, and submitted the case to the jury with instructions to which no exception was taken. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.

By tttp: Court.

There was evidence sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the verdict.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Ex Parte Striitmatter
124 S.W. 906 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 Mass. 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-carter-mass-1871.