Commonwealth v. Cornell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Cornell

99 N.E. 975, 213 Mass. 135, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 684

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 N.E. 975 (Commonwealth v. Cornell) 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. Cornell, 99 N.E. 975, 213 Mass. 135, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 684 (Mass. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Loring, J.

If the defendant exposed poison with intent that it should be swallowed but it was not swallowed by the cattle in question, the jury had to find a verdict of guilty on the second count and a verdict of not guilty on the first. There is no inconsistency between the two.

The other reason for arresting judgment was that “cattle” is not sufficiently definite. This was a cause existing before verdict not affecting the jurisdiction of the court and so not ground for arresting judgment. R. L. c. 219, § 38. Commonwealth v. Monahan, 170 Mass. 460.

It is not improper to add, however, that there is nothing in the objection. For while the word “ cattle” may have been too indefinite under the black act, St. 9 Geo. I. c. 22, § 3, (Rex v. Chalkley, Russ. & Ry. 258) and at common law (State v. Brookhouse, 10 Wash. 87), it is not too indefinite under our criminal practice act. That act provides that a detailed description is not necessary (R. L. c. 218, § 17) and gives the defendant a right to a bill of particulars if the charge would not be otherwise fully, plainly, substantially and formally set out. R. L. c. 218, § 39. Commonwealth v. Dill, 160 Mass. 536. Commonwealth v. Jordan, 207 Mass. 259. Under that statute it is sufficient to charge this act in the words of the statute creating the crime. R. L. c. 208, § 98.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Loring, J.

If the defendant exposed poison with intent that it should be swallowed but it was not swallowed by the cattle in question, the jury had to find a verdict of guilty on the second count and a verdict of not guilty on the first. There is no inconsistency between the two.

The other reason for arresting judgment was that “cattle” is not sufficiently definite. This was a cause existing before verdict not affecting the jurisdiction of the court and so not ground for arresting judgment. R. L. c. 219, § 38. Commonwealth v. Monahan, 170 Mass. 460.

It is not improper to add, however, that there is nothing in the objection. For while the word “ cattle” may have been too indefinite under the black act, St. 9 Geo. I. c. 22, § 3, (Rex v. Chalkley, Russ. & Ry. 258) and at common law (State v. Brookhouse, 10 Wash. 87), it is not too indefinite under our criminal practice act. That act provides that a detailed description is not necessary (R. L. c. 218, § 17) and gives the defendant a right to a bill of particulars if the charge would not be otherwise fully, plainly, substantially and formally set out. R. L. c. 218, § 39. Commonwealth v. Dill, 160 Mass. 536. Commonwealth v. Jordan, 207 Mass. 259. Under that statute it is sufficient to charge this act in the words of the statute creating the crime. R. L. c. 208, § 98.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 N.E. 975, 213 Mass. 135, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-cornell-mass-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack