Com. v. Devine

• Decision Date: 06 January 1892
• Citation: Com. v. Devine, 155 Mass. 224, 29 N.E. 515 (Mass. 1892)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. DEVINE et al.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

155 Mass. 224

29 N.E. 515

COMMONWEALTH v. DEVINE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

January 6, 1892

COUNSEL

A.E. Pillsbury, Atty. Gen., and C.N. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

C.A. De Courcy, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON, J.

The defendant objects that the indictment does not properly charge the crime of subornation of perjury, and that a charge for subornation of perjury and for perjury cannot be joined in one indictment.It is plain, upon the authorities, that the objection is not tenable on either ground.It is also clear that the principal and accessory may be joined both in one indictment.Com. v. Adams, 7 Gray, 43;Com. v. Darling,129 Mass. 112;Com. v. Mullen,150 Mass. 394, 23 N.E. 51;Com. v. Glover,111 Mass. 395;Com. v. Smith,11 Allen, 243;Regina v. Tuckwell, Car. &M. 215;Train &H. Prec. 15;Com. v. Adams,127 Mass. 15.

The defendant further objects that the indictment does not allege that Catharine Heaney testified falsely, or that the defendant knowingly procured her to do so.The allegations were, in substance, that she willfully and corruptly testified that she did not do certain things that were set out, whereas she then and there well knew that she did do those things, and that the defendant did feloniously and maliciously incite her to commit perjury, in the manner and form aforesaid.This sufficiently avers that she testified falsely; and feloniously and maliciously import that the defendant knowingly procured the perjury.Com. v. McCarthy,153 Mass. 577, 26[29 N.E. 516] N.E. 140;Com. v. Adams, supra.There are other objections stated in the defendant's motion to quash, but we understand the above to be the only ones argued upon his brief, and therefore that the others were waived.Exceptions overruled.