Com. v. Goldman
| Decision Date | 23 March 1910 |
| Citation | 91 N.E. 392,205 Mass. 400 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. GOLDMAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William Hirsh, for appellant.
A. C. Webber, Asst. Dist. Atty, for the commonwealth.
Rev. Laws, c. 208, § 55, is in part as follows: 'Whoever, * * * with intent to cheat or defraud the owner thereof, * * * refuses to pay for the use of a horse or carriage the lawful hack or carriage fare established therefor by any city or town, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than two months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'
The defendant was found guilty upon a complaint made under this statute. The complaint does not refer to a horse or to a carriage by name, but alleges that the defendant 'did use a certain automobile' and did 'refuse to pay for the said use of said automobile the said lawful fare established therefor as aforesaid.' The only question in the case is whether the word 'carriage' used in the statute includes automobiles.
The same question was very fully considered in Doherty v. Ayer, 197 Mass. 241, 83 N.E. 677, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 816, 125 Am. St. Rep. 355, in reference to the word 'carriage' as used in Rev. Laws, c. 51, § 1. Much of what was said in that case is equally applicable to the question now before us.
For the commonwealth, it may be said that the reasons for such a statute are the same in reference to refusal to pay for the use of an automobile, with intent to cheat or defraud the owner, as in reference to a like refusal when a carriage is used. On the other hand, the defendant well contends that this is a criminal statute and that such statutes are always construed strictly in favor of the defendant.
It is certain that when this statute was originally enacted, the Legislature, in using the word 'carriage,' had no thought of a vehicle made up in large part of complicated machinery, and propelled by a powerful engine whose operation is similar to that of locomotive engines on railroads. While such a vehicle may be called a carriage in the broad sense that it is used to carry persons and property, it is not commonly referred to as a carriage, but is distinguished from carriages by another name to designate a vehicle of an entirely different character.
We are of opinion that automobiles are not included in this statute.
Exceptions sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Welosky
...Am. St. Rep. 120;Doherty v. Ayer, 197 Mass. 241, 244-246, 83 N. E. 677,14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 816, 125 Am. St. Rep. 355;Commonwealth v. Goldman, 205 Mass. 400, 91 N. E. 392;Sawin v. Connecticut Valley Street Railway, 213 Mass. 103, 106, 99 N. E. 952,43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 72;Ansell v. Boston, 254......
-
Harco Corporation v. Martin, Com'R of Rev.
...of North Lawrence, 8 Kan. 82; Bandos v. City of Philadelphia, 304 Pa. 191, 155 A. 279; In re Wilder (D.C.) 221 F. 476; Commonwealth v. Goldman, 205 Mass. 400, 91 N.E. 392; United States v. One Automobile (D.C.) 237 F. 891; Shawnee National Bank v. U.S. (C.C.A.) 249 F. 583. There may be stil......
-
Commonwealth v. Welosky
...of those who framed and enacted them. Richardson v. Danvers, 176 Mass. 413 , 414. Doherty v. Ayer, 197 Mass. 241, 244-246. Commonwealth v. Goldman, 205 Mass. 400 . v. Connecticut Valley Street Railway, 213 Mass. 103 , 106. Ansell v. Boston, 254 Mass. 208 , 210-211. Zoulalian v. New England ......
-
Whitney v. Welnitz
...agencies were wholly unknown. Doherty v. Ayer, 197 Mass. 241, 83 N. E. 677,14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 816, 125 Am. St. Rep. 355;Com. v. Goldman, 205 Mass. 400, 91 N. E. 392. The authorities on the subject are not in full harmony though perhaps no substantial conflict will be found when the decisio......