Com. v. Dunn

• Decision Date: 08 January 1898
• Citation: 49 N.E. 110,170 Mass. 140
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. DUNN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

170 Mass. 140

49 N.E. 110

COMMONWEALTH v. DUNN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

January 8, 1898

COUNSEL

Asst. Dist. Atty. Arthur P. Rugg and Dist. Atty Herbert Parker, for the Commonwealth.

Frank P. Goulding and Wm. C. Mellish, for defendant.

OPINION

FIELD C.J.

We assume that St.1894, c. 508, § 51, as amended by St.1895, c 438, and St.1896, c. 241, is not in violation of the constitution of this commonwealth or of the United States for the reasons stated in the opinion given by the justices to the house of representatives on May 6, 1895. 163 Mass 589, 40 N.E. 713. We are of opinion that the effect of St.1895, c. 438, is to make persons and partnerships engaged in any manufacturing business in the commonwealth, and having more than 25 employés, subject to the general provisions of St.1894, c. 508, § 51, concerning manufacturing corporations; but that the special provisions of that section concerning municipal corporations not cities, and concerning counties, co-operative corporations or associations, and railroad corporations are not applicable to such persons and partnerships. As the word "corporation," found in section 65 of the statute of 1894, cannot be held to include the persons and partnerships mentioned in the statute of 1895, we are of opinion that section 78 of the statute of 1894 is applicable to such persons and partnerships. After the passage of the statute of 1895, section 51 of the statute of 1894 is to be read as if the statute of 1895 had been incorporated in it. Conrad v. Nall, 24 Mich. 275; Farrell v. State, 54 N.J.Law, 421, 24 A. 725. We find nothing else in the exceptions taken at the trial, or in the motion to quash the complaint, which seems to require notice, except the contention that the complaint should be quashed because it "fails to set forth that any wages were due at the times alleged." One allegation of the complaint is "that said John A. Dunn did, at Gardner aforesaid, on the fifteenth day of September, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, and on all other days and times between said first day of September and said fifteenth day of September, neglect to pay to said Henry A. Struthers, as such employé as aforesaid, in the said manufacturing business of him, the said John A. Dunn, the wages of him, the said Henry A. Struthers, so earned as aforesaid, on said first day of September," etc. This perhaps implies that the wages...