Commonwealth v. Woods

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Woods

75 Mass. 131

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Mass. 131 (Commonwealth v. Woods) 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. Woods, 75 Mass. 131 (Mass. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Metcalf, J.

This indictment charges only a single offence, namely, that the defendant was a common seller of intoxicating liquors, at Hopkinton, on the first day of January 1856, and from that day to the day of the finding of the indictment, without any license, appointment or authority therefor duly obtained. And this form of charge has been decided to be sufficient and proper. Commonwealth v. Pray, 13 Pick. 359. Commonwealth v. Wood, 4 Gray, 11. In the second of these cases, the indictment was precisely like that in the present case; that is, the place where the offence was committed was inserted twice; once when alleging a day certain, and again when alleging divers subsequent days. This repetition was doubtless unnecessary, but it was not improper, and there is no ground for the objection that two offences are thereby alleged in the indictment. We express no opinion whether duplicity, when found in an indictment, is cause for arresting judgment.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Metcalf, J.

This indictment charges only a single offence, namely, that the defendant was a common seller of intoxicating liquors, at Hopkinton, on the first day of January 1856, and from that day to the day of the finding of the indictment, without any license, appointment or authority therefor duly obtained. And this form of charge has been decided to be sufficient and proper. Commonwealth v. Pray, 13 Pick. 359. Commonwealth v. Wood, 4 Gray, 11. In the second of these cases, the indictment was precisely like that in the present case; that is, the place where the offence was committed was inserted twice; once when alleging a day certain, and again when alleging divers subsequent days. This repetition was doubtless unnecessary, but it was not improper, and there is no ground for the objection that two offences are thereby alleged in the indictment. We express no opinion whether duplicity, when found in an indictment, is cause for arresting judgment.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Mass. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-woods-mass-1857.