Com. v. Mcparland

• Decision Date: 03 December 1888
• Citation: 148 Mass. 127,19 N.E. 25
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. McPARLAND et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

148 Mass. 127

19 N.E. 25

COMMONWEALTH v. McPARLAND et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

December 3, 1888

COUNSEL

J.L. Eldridge, for defendants.

A.J Waterman, Atty. Gen., and H.C. Bliss, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

HOLMES J.

The defendants are alleged to have conspired and agreed that one Weeks, seemingly a stranger to the agreement, and ignorant of it, should make a complaint, honestly, so far as appears against the defendant Byers, before a trial justice, for keeping a nuisance, and further to have conspired and agreed to cause Byers to be acquitted upon the complaint, and to aid one another in putting into execution their alleged conspiracy. These are the only acts which the defendants are alleged to have conspired to do.

The intent alleged, "to cause it falsely to appear of record that said Phillip Byers had been tried, found not guilty, and discharged," etc., is not consistent with the alleged intent and effect of the acts to be done, since those acts were to result in an acquittal, and therefore were to cause it truly to appear of record that Byers had been acquitted. It is not alleged that the conspiracy contemplated the use of any improper means to procure Byers' acquittal, or that Byers was not innocent in fact. There is no law that we know of to prevent a man's friends combining to help him by honest means to an acquittal from a false charge. We are not prepared to say that it is unlawful for them, with his consent, to procure him to be proceeded against in order to secure by honest means a judicial determination of his innocence. It is alleged that at the time of the alleged conspiracy Byers had been complained of for the same offense before another trial justice, had been found guilty, and had appealed, and that his case was then pending in the superior court, as the defendants knew; and it is further alleged that they conspired, as stated, with intent to prevent the due course of law and justice. But a man may lawfully be complained of, notwithstanding there is another complaint pending for the same cause, (Com. v. Drew, 3 Cush. 279; Com. v. Murphy, 11 Cush. 472; Com. v. Berry, 5 Gray, 93; Com. v. Lahy, 8 Gray, 459,) and if the defendants should have done only the lawful acts which we have mentioned, although they might have prevented a conviction, if successful, they could not have prevented the due course of law.

Exceptions...