Commonwealth v. Doherty
This text of 103 Mass. 443 (Commonwealth v. Doherty) 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.
Opinion
An indictment on the Gen. Sts. c. 164, § 10, for being armed with a dangerous weapon when arrested for a criminal offence, must allege, in substance or effect, that the arrest was lawful. Commonwealth v. O'Connor, 7 Allen, 583. This indictment alleges that the defendant was arrested by a police officer of the city of Boston under and by virtue of a warrant from a magistrate, particularly described ; but it does not allege that the arrest was lawful, or that the officer was authorized to make it. By the laws of the Commonwealth, police officers may be appointed in towns and cities, with all or any of the [444]*444powers of constables, except that of serving and executing civil process. Gen. Sts. c. 18, § 38; c. 19, § 2. Police officers might therefore be appointed in Boston with or without the power of serving such a criminal process as is described in the indictment ; and, for aught that appears in the indictment, the officer who served the warrant upon the defendant may have had no lawful power to do so. The indictment is therefore bad, and should have been quashed. The King v. Everett, 8 B. & C. 114 S. C. 2 Man. & Ryl. 35. United States v. Stowell, 2 Curt. C. C. 153. Indictment quashed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
103 Mass. 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-doherty-mass-1869.