Commonwealth v. Sherman
This text of 22 Mass. 239 (Commonwealth v. Sherman) 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.
Opinion
Certiorari. The question was whether, upon a complaint by a clerk of a company of militia against a private soldier for neglect of duty, parol evidence that the clerk had been duly sworn was admissible. (See 4 Pick. 66, [2d ed. 68, n. 1.] S. C.)
to show that the certificate of the clerk’s being sworn, pursuant to St. 1809, c. 108, § 8, was not indispensable, cited Green v. Gill, 8 Mass. R. Ill ; Nason v. Dillingham, 15 Mass. R. 170; Bucknam v. Ruggles, ibid. 180. [See Revised Stat. c. 12, § 112, p. 127.]
on the other side, was stopped by the Court ancj afterwards, at the November term in Essex, the proceedings upon the complaint were quashed, because there was no certificate, as required by the statute, upon the warrant appointing the clerk, that he had been duly sworn.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
22 Mass. 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-sherman-mass-1827.