Com. v. Bond

• Decision Date: 08 December 1897
• Citation: 170 Mass. 41,48 N.E. 756
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. BOND.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

170 Mass. 41

48 N.E. 756

COMMONWEALTH v. BOND.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

December 8, 1897

SYNOPSIS

Exceptions from superior court, Worcester county; Henry Wardwell, Judge.

William M. Bond was convicted of arson, and he brings exceptions.Overruled.

OPINION

This was an indictment for setting fire to and burning a barn in Oxford, in said county of Worcester, as set forth in the indictment which is referred to and made part of these exceptions.The evidence introduced at the trial showed that the defendant was a boy 16 years of age, under average intelligence; and the family physician described him as not foolish or insane, but what was called in common speech as "half-baked."The fire marshal, who testified in the case, who was not qualified as a medical expert, said that, in his opinion, he was a boy addicted to habits of self-abuse, and belonged to a class of incendiaries who set fire from a momentary mania or impulse, which is a freak of nature, over which they have no control, and which was the result of the habits and condition of the boy at that age.The boy had been living with his parents at said Oxford.A part of the evidence introduced by the commonwealth was a confession, hereinafter referred to.The circumstances under which the said confession was said to have been made were that a summons was served upon the defendant while he was at the shop of one Chaffee, to go to the fire marshal's office in Boston, and he went there in company with one Chaffee, who was also summoned at the same time, with the aid to the fire marshal, one Scott, who served the summons; that he went to Boston without the knowledge of his father; that he asked to see him, and was told by Scott that there was not time for him to go to see his father before the train left Oxford.The defendant arrived at the fire marshal's office at about 3 p.m., where he remained until 5 p.m., when the following interview took place between him and the fire marshal, as testified to by the official who was called as a witness for the government in the prosecution of the case and in his direct examination by the district attorney he said: "The Germain fire was called to my attention late in the afternoon Thursday, October 15th, and I was informed of the evidence and suspicion against the boy who was in the waiting room, and I asked him to step into my private office.I asked his name, age, residence, which he gave me.I saw by his looks that he was a boy addicted to self-abuse.I said to him, 'You have been having quite a number of fires in Oxford.'He smiled, and said they had.'Now,' I said, 'I want you to tell me about them, but, before you do, I want to tell you about the different kinds of fires that we have to deal with.First.There are a class who set fires to get the insurance and defraud insurance companies.Second.There are a class who do it for spite.These people are a menace to society, and deserve no pity or sympathy.Third.There are a class, at a certain age, who have a mania for setting fires without an evil motive; such as women in pregnancy, girls coming to puberty, and boys of your age and habits, for whom I have sympathy.And I take it this fire was one of this class.'The boy said, 'Do you think that I set the fire?'I said, 'Yes.'And he said, 'Why?'And I said, 'No matter.'He said, 'I had nothing to do with the Chaffee fire.'I said, 'Go on and tell me about the Germain fire.'The boy said, 'What will they do with me?Will they send me away?'I made no reply.[ But upon being cross-examined, the witness said the reason why he did not reply was that he thought it would affect the boy so that he would break down if he told him what he asked.]I then asked him how many matches he used to set the fire.He said, 'One.'I asked him where he got it.He said, 'At Germain's kitchen.'I said 'Now, I want to call in some witnesses, and this evidence may be used against you.'The boy then said he had no intention of setting the fire when he started, but that, when he passed the barn, the hay stuck out of the window, and he lighted it; and that he did it to see it burn for the excitement.I then called in the stenographer, and dictated the paper called the 'confession,' the first part of which I dictated without saying anything to him, to the word 'prosecution'; and then I used my own language, and after dictating a few words, asked him if it was all right, to which he replied it was.Then I dictated a little more, asking him again; and so on until it was all dictated.Then it was all read over to him again before he signed it, and he said it was all right.After showing him that it might be used as evidence in court against him, he signed it, and I had him hold up his hand and make oath to it before me, and the witnesses sign it."The defendant, having duly excepted to the admission of the alleged confession obtained in Boston under the date of October 15th, a copy of which is annexed, now praysthat his exception be allowed.The case was submitted to the jury, under appropriate instructions, which were not excepted to.

The following is the confession, viz.:

"I, William M. Bond, of Oxford, Massachusetts, hereby make the following voluntary confession, of my own free will and accord, without hope of favor or reward by reason of my so doing, and having been fully warned that the same might be used against me in criminal prosecution: On the evening of October 11, 1896, between six and seven o'clock, I set fire to an old

...