Commonwealth v. Coates

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Coates

47 N.E. 1011, 169 Mass. 354, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 79

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 21, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 N.E. 1011 (Commonwealth v. Coates) 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. Coates, 47 N.E. 1011, 169 Mass. 354, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 79 (Mass. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J.

The motion to quash was rightly overruled. It was not necessary to charge the keeping of the dog on or before the 30th day of April. If one at any time beeps a dog which is not registered, numbered, described, and licensed according to law, he is subject to a penalty. Pub. Sts. c. 102, §§ 80, 87. The complaint charged such a keeping, and it was not necessary to go further in the averments, and set forth the particular time when such keeping began. As a matter of pleading, the general averment negativing registration, etc., according to law, was sufficient. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 2 Allen, 507. See also Commonwealth v. Palmer, 134 Mass. 537. Ve^ many decisions under the statutes relating to intoxicating liquors are to a similar effect.

It appeared that the defendant was the owner and keeper of the dog before the 1st day of May. It was therefore his duty to have the dog registered on or before the 30th day of April. The defendant now suggests that evidence of keepership outside of the time alleged cannot be considered. No such question appears to have been raised at the trial; but the evidence was clearly [356]*356competent in order to show that he was not authorized to keep the dog on the 1st day of May, for want of a license previously obtained.

We have no occasion to consider whether an unlicensed dog bought on the 1st day of May must be registered and licensed before the 30th of the ensuing April.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Allen, J.

The motion to quash was rightly overruled. It was not necessary to charge the keeping of the dog on or before the 30th day of April. If one at any time beeps a dog which is not registered, numbered, described, and licensed according to law, he is subject to a penalty. Pub. Sts. c. 102, §§ 80, 87. The complaint charged such a keeping, and it was not necessary to go further in the averments, and set forth the particular time when such keeping began. As a matter of pleading, the general averment negativing registration, etc., according to law, was sufficient. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 2 Allen, 507. See also Commonwealth v. Palmer, 134 Mass. 537. Ve^ many decisions under the statutes relating to intoxicating liquors are to a similar effect.

It appeared that the defendant was the owner and keeper of the dog before the 1st day of May. It was therefore his duty to have the dog registered on or before the 30th day of April. The defendant now suggests that evidence of keepership outside of the time alleged cannot be considered. No such question appears to have been raised at the trial; but the evidence was clearly [356]*356competent in order to show that he was not authorized to keep the dog on the 1st day of May, for want of a license previously obtained.

We have no occasion to consider whether an unlicensed dog bought on the 1st day of May must be registered and licensed before the 30th of the ensuing April.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.E. 1011, 169 Mass. 354, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-coates-mass-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack