Commonwealth v. Harvey
This text of 111 Mass. 420 (Commonwealth v. Harvey) 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
All the points made in this case are covered by previous decisions. The objections to the complaint were formal, and not having been made in the Municipal Court, to which the complaint was originally presented, were not open in the Superior Court. Commonwealth v. Walton, 11 Allen, 238. Commonwealth v. Vincent, 108 Mass. 441. The objections to the service of the Warrant could not be made for the first time in the Superior Court. Commonwealth v. Henry, 7 Cush. 512. Commonwealth v. Gregory, 7 Gray, 498. The attestation of the record by the assistant clerk of the Municipal Court was sufficient. Commonwealth v. Clark, 16 Gray, 88. Commonwealth v. Connell, 9 Allen, 488. Any irregularity in the proceedings of the Municipal Court presented no ground for dismissing the complaint in the court appealed to ; for the appeal vacated the judgment below and gave the defendant his full rights in the court above. Commonwealth v. O'Neil, 6 Gray, 343. Commonwealth v. Tinkham, 14 Gray, 12. Commonwealth v. McCormack, 7 Allen, 532.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
111 Mass. 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-harvey-mass-1873.