Bradley v. Burton

• Citation: 24 N.E. 778,151 Mass. 419
• Parties: BRADLEY v. BURTON.
• Decision Date: 09 May 1890
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

151 Mass. 419

24 N.E. 778

BRADLEY v. BURTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 9, 1890

May 9 1890

HEADNOTES

COUNSEL

W.W Doherty, for plaintiff.

W.B French, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

This case presents the question whether the proof of a charge "that since the debt was contracted, or the cause of action accrued, the debtor has hazarded and paid money or other property, to the value of one hundred dollars or more, in some kind of gaming prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth," will preclude a debtor who is arrested from taking the oath for the relief of poor-debtors, if it appears that the game was played in another state, and that the debtor was not a citizen of this commonwealth. See Pub.St. c. 162, § 17, cl. 3. If the only effect given by our laws to proof of such charges of fraud were to deprive a debtor of the benefit of provisions enacted for the relief of innocent poor persons arrested for debt, there would be force in the contention that the language of the statute refers to the nature of the game, irrespective of the question whether the gaming was in such a place as to come within the prohibition of our criminal laws. But the effect reaches further. Not only does conviction upon a charge of fraud under this chapter deprive the debtor of all benefit of proceedings for the relief of poor debtors, but it subjects him to a sentence to confinement at hard labor for a term not exceeding one year. Id. § 52. This is nothing less than punishment for a misdemeanor. The provision of the statute is peculiar, ingrafted upon laws which are in their nature civil, and which in all other parts have no connection with criminal jurisprudence. Stockwell v. Silloway, 100 Mass. 287; Anderson v. Edwards, 123 Mass. 273.

But this feature of the statute challenges attention when a charge is made against a non-resident, founded on his conduct in another state, where he owed no allegiance to this commonwealth and when he had no thought of offending against our laws. It is a general rule that a state or nation cannot give its statutes extraterritorial effect. There are cases in which, for some purposes, its absent subjects may be made amenable to its laws. Some acts which are consummated, and which take effect in one jurisdiction, may proceed from an actor in another, who, if found in the place where the mischief is done, may be punished there. But it is contra to fundamental principles of justice that a state should assume to regulate the conduct of citizens of foreign states who have never been within its borders,...