Commonwealth v. Stone

105 Mass. 469
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

The usual and proper practice is, that the prosecuting officer shall countersign indictments; but there is nothing in the statutes requiring it, and we do not think it is indispensable to the validity of an indictment. It has been so held in New Hampshire. State v. Farrar, 41 N. H. 53. The bill is to be found by the grand jury, and therefore the signature of ihe foreman is necessary. Webster's case, 5 Greenl. 432. State v. Squire, 10 N. H. 558. State v. Freeman, 13 N. H. 488. But the prosecuting attorney acts independently of the grand jury and not as a part of that body. Exceptions overruled.

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

Commonwealth v. Stone, 105 Mass. 469 (Mass. 1870).

105 Mass. 469 (Commonwealth v. Stone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Swietkoski v. Swenson
72 A.2d 685 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1950)
People v. Strauch
93 N.E. 126 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1910)
People v. Strauch
153 Ill. App. 544 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1910)
Cross v. People
66 Ill. App. 170 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1896)
In Re Lane
135 U.S. 443 (Supreme Court, 1890)