Commonwealth v. Moody
9 N.E. 511, 143 Mass. 177, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 250
Opinion
C. Allen, J.
The objection on the ground of duplicity cannot be supported.- The offence charged is not the registering of a bet, or the selling of a pool, although these are criminal acts ; but the keeping of a room for the purpose of doing those things. It makes no difference, in this respect, how many different unlawful or criminal purposes the room was kept for. The offence of keeping it for those various purposes is a single one, and may properly be charged in one count. Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Gray, 328, 330.
Judgment for the Commonwealth.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Moody, 9 N.E. 511, 143 Mass. 177, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 250 (Mass. 1887).
9 N.E. 511 (Commonwealth v. Moody) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Murphy
173 N.E.2d 630 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1961)
Commonwealth v. Jensky
61 N.E.2d 532 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Commonwealth v. Sullivan
218 Mass. 281 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Commonwealth v. Rogers
63 N.E. 421 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Commonwealth v. Igo
33 N.E. 339 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Commonwealth v. Clancy
27 N.E. 1001 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
State v. Shaw
39 N.W. 305 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1888)
Commonwealth v. Ferry
15 N.E. 484 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)