Commonwealth v. Hyland
28 N.E. 1055, 155 Mass. 7, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 3
Opinion
The jury may have disbelieved the defendant’s testimony. In that case the fact that he and his wife lived together in his tenement was competent evidence to prove that she acted as his agent. Commonwealth v. Coughlin, 14 Gray, 389. Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 114 Mass. 306. Commonwealth v. Locke, 145 Mass. 401. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Hyland, 28 N.E. 1055, 155 Mass. 7, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 3 (Mass. 1891).
28 N.E. 1055 (Commonwealth v. Hyland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lydon v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
34 N.E.2d 642 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
State v. . Hardy
182 S.E. 831 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Commonwealth v. Slavski
245 Mass. 405 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Commonwealth v. Russ
232 Mass. 58 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
State v. Otto
161 N.W. 340 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1917)
Tucker v. State
1912 OK CR 226 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1912)
Lindenbaum v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
84 N.E. 129 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Trometer v. District of Columbia
24 App. D.C. 242 (D.C. Circuit, 1904)
Commonwealth v. Welch
40 N.E. 103 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Commonwealth v. McNeese
30 N.E. 1021 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)