Commonwealth v. Mill

130 Mass. 33, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 320
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 8, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 130 Mass. 33 (Commonwealth v. Mill) 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. Mill, 130 Mass. 33, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 320 (Mass. 1880).

Opinion

Morton, J.

This complaint does not set out any offence with the certainty required in-criminal pleadings.

The-object of the statute is to protect the rights, and regulate the hours of labor, of those permanently employed in laboring in manufacturing establishments as workmen, or hands, as they are popularly called. The complaint does not allege that Julia Hurley was employed in laboring in a manufacturing establishment belonging to the defendant. It merely alleges that she was employed in the cloth room of the defendant, a manufacturing company. Every allegation of the complaint would be fully met by proof that the defendant on the day named employed her to sweep the cloth room, or to perform any other occasional and temporary service. Such proof would not make a case within the spirit or letter of the statute.

If any complaint can be maintained against the defendant for its failure to post the notice required by the St. of 1880, e. 194, [35]*35without proof that it has employed in laboring minors or women more than ten hours a day or sixty hours a week, which we do not decide, yet this complaint is fatally defective in failing to allege that the said Julia Hurley was employed in laboring within the meaning of the statute.

Complaint quashed.

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

Related

Hamilton Manufacturing Co. v. City of Lowell
175 N.E. 73 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Commonwealth v. Riley
97 N.E. 367 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Commonwealth v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
92 N.E. 766 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 Mass. 33, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mill-mass-1880.