Lynch v. Crosby

134 Mass. 313, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 294
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 28, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 134 Mass. 313 (Lynch v. Crosby) 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
Lynch v. Crosby, 134 Mass. 313, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 294 (Mass. 1883).

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to be directed to the judge and clerk of the Police Court of Lowell. The writ is sought, not to be used as ancillary to any other process, but for the purpose of quashing the proceedings of the said police court in issuing a search warrant for the seizure of intoxicating liquors. A writ of "certiorari lies only to correct the errors of inferior courts, or officers acting judicially, in proceedings not according to the course of the common law. It does not lie to revise the acts of a court whose procedure is according to the course of the common law, and whose errors can be corrected by appeal or exceptions, or by a writ of error. Gen. Sts. c. 145, § 8. Pub. Sts. c. 186, § 7. Farmington River Water Power Co. v. County Commissioners, 112 Mass. 206. Tewksbury v. County Commissioners, 117 Mass. 563. Police courts are courts of record, of common law jurisdiction, civil and criminal. In receiving complaints and issuing warrants for the seizure of intoxicating liquors illegally kept, they proceed according to the course and principles of the common law. Any decisions of the court may be appealed from. At the trial in the Superior Court, any legal objections to the complaint and warrant may be taken, and are the subjects of appeal or exceptions, or, in a proper case, of a writ of error. Though the cause for the search and seizure did not exist at common law, but is created by statute, this is immaterial. The procedure to enforce the statute is according to the course of the common law, in the same manner as are proceedings by indictment and trial for any new offence created by statute.

Without considering other objections to the petition, we are therefore of opinion that the court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in the case before us. Petition dismissed.

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

Related

Rines v. Justices of the Superior Court
113 N.E.2d 817 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
Vivori v. Fourth District Court of Berkshire
82 N.E.2d 9 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
State v. Lowenthal
140 A. 586 (Morris County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1923)
Reed v. Police Court
52 N.E. 633 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Attorney General v. Mayor of Northampton
10 N.E. 450 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 Mass. 313, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-crosby-mass-1883.