Commonwealth v. Sullivan

Decision Date31 December 1889
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. SULLIVAN.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

A.J. Waterman, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

E.L. Barney, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

Pub.St. c. 100, § 18, was amended by St.1889, c. 114, so as to make the punishment more severe. By St.1889, c. 268, which was enacted and went into operation on April 18, the same day that chapter 114 went into operation, it was provided that the amendment should not apply to prior offenses. It is unnecessary to consider whether, if, as we believe is the fact, chapter 268 was passed after the first minute of April 18th, it would or would not preserve the defendant's liability; for, by Pub.St. c. 3, § 3, cl. 2, "the repeal of an act shall not affect any punishment, penalty, or forfeiture incurred before the repeal takes effect, or any suit, prosecution, or proceeding pending at the time of the repeal for an offense committed, or for the recovery of a penalty or forfeiture incurred, under the act repealed." The defendant committed her offense, and the proceeding was pending, before St.1889, c. 114, took effect.

The other exceptions are not much pressed, and may be disposed of in a few words. Selling intoxicating liquors may be evidence of the offense of maintaining a tenement used for the illegal keeping and sale of such liquor, but is not the same offense; and a person may be guilty of the former without being guilty of the latter. Therefore an acquittal for the latter is not a bar to a prosecution for the former, even if it appears that the sale now relied on was given in evidence in the prosecution for maintaining the tenement. Morey v. Com., 108 Mass. 433, 435, and cases cited. The defendant having testified, the record of her conviction of a crime was admissible to affect her credibility. Pub.St. c. 169, § 19. By offering herself as a witness, she submitted to cross-examination, and therefore could be asked questions tending to identify her as the person named in the record. Com. v. Morgan, 107 Mass. 199, 205; Root v. Hamilton, 105 Mass. 22. Exceptions overruled.

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Bellino
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1947
  • Hutton v. Autoridad Sobre Hogares De La Capital, Civ. No. 5086.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • July 23, 1948
    ... ... 1056; Hochstetler v. Mosier Coal & Mining Co., 8 Ind.App. 442, 35 N.E. 927; Azeltine v. Lutterman, 218 Iowa 675, 254 N.W. 854; Commonwealth v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 186 Ky. 1, 215 S.W. 938; Denning v. 78 F. Supp. 994 Yount, 62 Kan. 217, 61 P. 803, 50 L.R.A. 103; Commonwealth v ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Bellino
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1947
    ... ...        Gertsen's ... motion was therefore directed entirely to the ... cross-examination by which the district attorney sought to ... identify Gertsen as the person sentenced in order to lay a ... foundation for the introduction of the record later. See ... Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 150 Mass. 315 , 317. But ... the cross-examination may well have been incompetent if the ... record of the sentence was incompetent. Commonwealth v ... Walsh, 196 Mass. 369 ... Commonwealth v. Danton, ... 243 Mass. 552 ... Commonwealth v. Sheppard, 313 Mass ... 590, 608. Compare Commonwealth v ... ...
  • Kitts v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1901
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT