Enbinder v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Enbinder v. Commonwealth

281 N.E.2d 863, 361 Mass. 871, 1972 Mass. LEXIS 1015

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 3, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 281 N.E.2d 863 (Enbinder v. Commonwealth) 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

Enbinder v. Commonwealth, 281 N.E.2d 863, 361 Mass. 871, 1972 Mass. LEXIS 1015 (Mass. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

A single justice correctly sustained a demurrer to a petition in the county court brought under G. L. c. 211, § 3, as amended by St. 1956, c. 707, § 1, to review a conviction for larceny in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. This court, as matter of discretion, seldom will exercise the authority given to it under § 3, especially where another remedy exists. The demurrer to the petition for a writ of error, seeking review of the same conviction, is an unsatisfactory method of dealing with allegations of the type set out in the petition. As matter of discretion, the single justice appropriately should have withheld action on the demurrer until after obtaining a more complete record concerning the Municipal Court proceeding either (1) by requiring an extended return from the Municipal Court judge (cf. Southwick Birds & Animals, Inc. v. County Commrs. of [872]*872Worcester County, 360 Mass. 133, 134, fn. 1, or (2) by taking evidence (directly or through a commissioner) concerning the Municipal Court proceeding. For the purpose of obtaining an adequate basis of fact on which to consider this matter, the order sustaining the demurrer to the petition for a writ of error is to be vacated. The case is remanded to the county court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed above. The exception to the order with respect to the petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (as amended), is overruled, and that petition is to be dismissed in the county court.

Sanford A. Kowal for the petitioner. James X. Kenneally, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

So ordered.

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

A single justice correctly sustained a demurrer to a petition in the county court brought under G. L. c. 211, § 3, as amended by St. 1956, c. 707, § 1, to review a conviction for larceny in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. This court, as matter of discretion, seldom will exercise the authority given to it under § 3, especially where another remedy exists. The demurrer to the petition for a writ of error, seeking review of the same conviction, is an unsatisfactory method of dealing with allegations of the type set out in the petition. As matter of discretion, the single justice appropriately should have withheld action on the demurrer until after obtaining a more complete record concerning the Municipal Court proceeding either (1) by requiring an extended return from the Municipal Court judge (cf. Southwick Birds & Animals, Inc. v. County Commrs. of [872]*872Worcester County, 360 Mass. 133, 134, fn. 1, or (2) by taking evidence (directly or through a commissioner) concerning the Municipal Court proceeding. For the purpose of obtaining an adequate basis of fact on which to consider this matter, the order sustaining the demurrer to the petition for a writ of error is to be vacated. The case is remanded to the county court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed above. The exception to the order with respect to the petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (as amended), is overruled, and that petition is to be dismissed in the county court.

Sanford A. Kowal for the petitioner. James X. Kenneally, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 N.E.2d 863, 361 Mass. 871, 1972 Mass. LEXIS 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enbinder-v-commonwealth-mass-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack