Commonwealth v. Johnson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Johnson

22 N.E. 82, 150 Mass. 54, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 8

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 16, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 N.E. 82 (Commonwealth v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 22 N.E. 82, 150 Mass. 54, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 8 (Mass. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

This is an indictment for the larceny of a number of sheep alleged to be the property of one Coleman.

There was evidence which would justify the jury in finding that the sheep of Coleman were in a pasture, together with sheep of one Parsons, and that all the sheep of both owners were stolen at the same time. There was evidence tending to [55]*55show that a short time afterwards a flock of sheep was found in the possession of the defendants, which, by its number and marking, resembled the Coleman and Parsons sheep. It was competent to show that some of this flock, identified by peculiar marks, were the sheep of Parsons. It tended to identify the whole flock as the flock which was stolen, and thus to show that some of the flock were the property of Coleman. The fact that it might prove another crime committed by the defendants is immaterial. Commonwealth v. Riggs, 14 Gray, 376. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 146 Mass. 571. Exceptions overruled.

H. C. Joyner, for the defendants. A. J. Waterman, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

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

Morton, C. J.

This is an indictment for the larceny of a number of sheep alleged to be the property of one Coleman.

There was evidence which would justify the jury in finding that the sheep of Coleman were in a pasture, together with sheep of one Parsons, and that all the sheep of both owners were stolen at the same time. There was evidence tending to [55]*55show that a short time afterwards a flock of sheep was found in the possession of the defendants, which, by its number and marking, resembled the Coleman and Parsons sheep. It was competent to show that some of this flock, identified by peculiar marks, were the sheep of Parsons. It tended to identify the whole flock as the flock which was stolen, and thus to show that some of the flock were the property of Coleman. The fact that it might prove another crime committed by the defendants is immaterial. Commonwealth v. Riggs, 14 Gray, 376. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 146 Mass. 571. Exceptions overruled.

H. C. Joyner, for the defendants. A. J. Waterman, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 N.E. 82, 150 Mass. 54, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-johnson-mass-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack