Commonwealth v. Lafayette
This text of 19 N.E. 26 (Commonwealth v. Lafayette) 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
C. Allen, J.
1. The defendant argues that there was no sufficient evidence; that the testimony of O’Brien destroyed itself. This argument would be proper before the jury, and on a motion for a new trial; but the direct testimony of O’Brien, if believed, was sufficient to warrant a conviction.
2. The points that there was no evidence that the sale testified to in the Superior Court was the same that was testified to in the District Court, and that the woman referred to by O’Brien was the defendant’s wife, were not taken at the trial, and are not open now.
B. The instruction as to the woman’s agency for the defendant was proper, in view of O’Brien’s testimony on cross-examination.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 N.E. 26, 148 Mass. 130, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-lafayette-mass-1888.