Com. v. Meehan

• Decision Date: 28 February 1898
• Citation: 49 N.E. 648,170 Mass. 362
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. MEEHAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

170 Mass. 362

49 N.E. 648

COMMONWEALTH v. MEEHAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

February 28, 1898

COUNSEL

H.N Allen, for appellant.

F.N Weir, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

KNOWLTON, J.

The first exception is to the admission of an answer of the witness Jewett in regard to the handwriting upon a certain piece of wrapping paper. He had testified that he had directed a boy, who was then, and had been for some months in his service, to wrap up two files which he had just sold, and to direct the package by writing on the back of it the name of the purchaser. He also had testified that the paper produced was that in which the files were wrapped. In regard to the question whether he knew the boy's handwriting, he answered that he thought he did. He was then asked if the name upon the wrapper was in the boy's handwriting, and was permitted to answer, subject to the defendant's exception. What his answer was does not appear, and the exception might be disposed of on the ground that the bill of exceptions does not show that the defendant was harmed by it. But, if we assume in his favor, and treat the bill as implying that the answer was in the affirmative, we think no error is shown. The preliminary question whether a witness is competent to give an opinion upon handwriting shown him is largely a question of fact, and the determination of it by the presiding justice cannot be set aside unless it is plainly wrong. Com. v. Hall, 164 Mass. 152, 41 N.E. 133. The witness had already testified that the paper was that used by the boy in wrapping up the files. The boy had been for some months in his service, in a capacity in which it appeared that he had occasion to write, and it might be inferred that the witness had seen him write many times. Very likely he saw him write the words in question. The form of his answer, that he thought he knew the boy's handwriting, did not import a lack of such knowledge as can be had on such a subject, which is ordinarily a mere matter of opinion. The judge might have thought from his tone and manner that he answered cautiously, not wishing to appear too positive about that which he knew very well. Moreover, the boy himself afterwards testified that the words were written by him.

The other exception is to the admission of a copy of the record of docket entries in the police court of Newton, showing a previous conviction of the defendant of another crime, and his sentence and commitment. The copy was duly certified and attested by the clerk, under the seal of the court. It contained everything that is required to make such a record admissible to affect the credibility of a witness. Com. v. Gorham, 99 Mass. 422; Com. v. Kiley, 150 Mass. 325, 23 N.E. 55. The only ground of the objection is that it was not an extended record of the case, but a record by docket entries. It has been decided many times that such a record is competent to prove the facts stated in it if the record has not been extended. ...