Commonwealth v. Sheedy

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Sheedy

34 N.E. 84, 159 Mass. 55, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 79

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 16, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 34 N.E. 84 (Commonwealth v. Sheedy) 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. Sheedy, 34 N.E. 84, 159 Mass. 55, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 79 (Mass. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

The indictment in this case charges that the defendant, at a time and place stated, “ did dispose of one suit of clothing of the value of thirty-five dollars by way of lottery.” Pub. Sts. c. 209, § 1. While the indictment follows the language of the statute, yet, as it charges a specific act, this is not enough. [56]*56The defendant is entitled to have the offence set out with the usual precision and certainty. The name of the person to whom the suit of clothing was disposed of should be alleged, or, if he is unknown, this fact should be stated.

This has been held to be the rule in regard to an illegal sale of liquor. Commonwealth v. Thurlow, 24 Pick. 374, 379. Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Met. 304, 308. And in Commonwealth v. Moore, 11 Cush. 600, it was held that an indictment for letting a tenement to be used for purposes of prostitution must state the name of the person to whom the tenement was let, or that such person was to the jurors unknown.

In Commonwealth v. Horton, 2 Gray, 69, on which the government relies, the offence charged was the setting up of a lottery. See also Commonwealth v. Harris, 13 Allen, 534; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 146 Mass. 142. In Commonwealth v. Brockway, 150 Mass. 322, no objection was made to the form of the indictment.

For the reasons above stated, we are of opinion that the defendant’s motion to quash the indictment should have been granted.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Lathrop, J.

The indictment in this case charges that the defendant, at a time and place stated, “ did dispose of one suit of clothing of the value of thirty-five dollars by way of lottery.” Pub. Sts. c. 209, § 1. While the indictment follows the language of the statute, yet, as it charges a specific act, this is not enough. [56]*56The defendant is entitled to have the offence set out with the usual precision and certainty. The name of the person to whom the suit of clothing was disposed of should be alleged, or, if he is unknown, this fact should be stated.

This has been held to be the rule in regard to an illegal sale of liquor. Commonwealth v. Thurlow, 24 Pick. 374, 379. Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Met. 304, 308. And in Commonwealth v. Moore, 11 Cush. 600, it was held that an indictment for letting a tenement to be used for purposes of prostitution must state the name of the person to whom the tenement was let, or that such person was to the jurors unknown.

In Commonwealth v. Horton, 2 Gray, 69, on which the government relies, the offence charged was the setting up of a lottery. See also Commonwealth v. Harris, 13 Allen, 534; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 146 Mass. 142. In Commonwealth v. Brockway, 150 Mass. 322, no objection was made to the form of the indictment.

For the reasons above stated, we are of opinion that the defendant’s motion to quash the indictment should have been granted.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.E. 84, 159 Mass. 55, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-sheedy-mass-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack