Commonwealth v. McMahon

133 Mass. 394, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 232
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 2, 1882·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

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

Commonwealth v. McMahon, 133 Mass. 394, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 232 (Mass. 1882).

133 Mass. 394 (Commonwealth v. McMahon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wheeler v. Hanson
37 N.E. 382 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)