Commonwealth v. Peirce

32 Mass. 170
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1833
StatusPublished

This text of 32 Mass. 170 (Commonwealth v. Peirce) 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. Peirce, 32 Mass. 170 (Mass. 1833).

Opinion

Certiorari to the Police Court of Salem, before whom one Kimball had been fined for non-appearance at a muster of a volunteer company in the militia. The evidence produced before that court to prove his absence, was a roll of the company, with pencil marks against the names of some of the members of the company, which marks were arbitrary and were explained by the clerk of the company to denote the absence of those members. It was resolved by this Court, that the roll and pencil marks were of themselves insufficient to prove Kimball’s absence, and that the clerk’s testimony [171]*171in explanation of the marks was inadmissible ; Commonwealth v. Paull, 4 Pick. 251 ; and the proceedings were quashed. Lord, for the commonwealth.

Choate, for the defendant.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 Mass. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-peirce-mass-1833.