Commonwealth v. Prince

344 N.E.2d 202, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 799
CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court
DecidedMarch 31, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 344 N.E.2d 202 (Commonwealth v. Prince) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Prince, 344 N.E.2d 202, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 799 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

There was no error in the admission de bene of the wife’s testimony as to the purchase price of the three-year old television set her husband had purchased. The purchase price was relevant evidence in determining the value of the set. Schneider v. Hayward, 231 Mass. 352, 357 (1918). “There is wide discretion in the trial judge to determine what evidence of value shall be deemed admissible in the circumstances.” Salter v. Leventhal, 337 Mass. 679, 691 (1958). Any objection based on hearsay was waived by the failure to make a motion to strike the testimony after it became apparent that her knowledge of the sale was secondhand. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 199 Mass. 55, 59 (1908). Brek’s Case, 335 Mass. 144, 149 (1956). See also Commonwealth v. Early, 349 Mass. 636, 637 (1965). In any event, in all the circumstances, the admission of the testimony was harmless. The second assignment of error is waived.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Civello
656 N.E.2d 1262 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1995)
Commonwealth v. Wood
457 N.E.2d 1131 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
344 N.E.2d 202, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-prince-massappct-1976.