Commonwealth v. McMahon
This text of 133 Mass. 394 (Commonwealth v. McMahon) 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
Neither of the reasons assigned for arresting the judgment can prevail. The complaint is dated by mistake on the twenty-fifth day of June, 1882; but the dates of the jurat and of the warrant show that it was made and sworn to on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1882, thus furnishing internal and plenary evidencé that the complaint was duly made before the arrest and trial, and that the date of the complaint was a mere clerical error, which could not mislead the defendant. Donahoe v. Shed, 8 Met. 326.
The mistake in describing the complainant in the body of the complaint as “ Austin W. Thayer ” was also clearly a clerical one. The signature to the complaint, the jurat and the warrant show that the complainant was Austin W. Kellogg. Such a clerical error, which cannot mislead or prejudice the defendant, furnishes no reason for arresting the judgment against him. Commonwealth v. Eagan, 103 Mass. 71. Commonwealth v. Randall, 4 Gray, 36. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
133 Mass. 394, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mcmahon-mass-1882.