Commonwealth v. Anderson

Citation32 N.E.2d 684,308 Mass. 370
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. ANDERSON.
Decision Date25 February 1941
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

308 Mass. 370
32 N.E.2d 684

COMMONWEALTH
v.
ANDERSON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Feb. 25, 1941.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Williams, Judge.

John H. Anderson was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Boston prohibiting the carrying and displaying of placards without a permit, and he brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained; judgment reversed; judgment for the defendant.

[32 N.E.2d 684]

Argued before FIELD, C. J., and LUMMUS, QUA, COX, and RONAN, JJ.

William J. Foley, Dist. Atty., and Francis J. Hickey, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.


A. A. Albert, of Boston, and W. P. Fowler, of Boston, for defendant.

QUA, Justice.

This complaint, stated in the bill of exceptions to have been brought under c. 39, § 37, of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Boston, 1925, was heard in the Superior Court without a jury on an agreed statement of facts which refers to the ordinance and states merely that the defendant, ‘being a member of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society’ and of ‘Jehovah's Witnesses,’ violated the ordinance by carrying and displaying ‘certain placards,’ while on foot on Washington Street, a public way, without a permit from the commissioner of public works of the city. The defendant was found guilty and fined $2.

With the record is printed a ‘Supplementary Agreed Statement of Facts,’ ‘to be filed and incorporated with the original bill of exceptions,’ wherein it is stated that the placards were twenty-four inches by fifteen inches in size; that by printed words they advertized a talk or lecture on ‘Religion as a World Remedy,’ open free to ‘All persons of good-will’; and that the defendant carried two of the placards, one in front of him and one behind him, attached by strings over his shoulders ‘sandwich style.’ This ‘supplementary’ statement of facts cannot be considered. It is signed by an assistant district attorney and by the attorney for the defendant, but it is not in fact incorporated or referred to in the bill of exceptions. It appears to have been filed about two weeks after the finding of guilty. It does not appear that the trial judge consented to its incorporation in the bill of exceptions or, indeed, that he ever saw it. Parties cannot merely by agreement among themselves alter a bill of exceptions in this manner. Carroll v. Daly, 162 Mass. 427, 428, 38 N.E. 1119,Gorey v. Guarente, 303 Mass. 569, 570, 571, 22 N.E.2d 99, and cases cited. In the view we take of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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