Com. v. O'neil

• Citation: 48 N.E. 134,169 Mass. 394
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. O'NEIL.
• Decision Date: 12 November 1897
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

169 Mass. 394

48 N.E. 134

COMMONWEALTH v. O'NEIL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Franklin.

November 12, 1897

COUNSEL

J.C. Hammond and F.L. Greene, for the Commonwealth.

E.H Beer, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The bill of exceptions in this case does not purport to give the evidence in full, but only so much of it as bears upon the questions of law. No question in regard to the weight or sufficiency of evidence is presented, but only the question whether the testimony objected to was competent for the consideration of the jury in connection with the other circumstances of the case. Among the circumstances relied on by the commonwealth was the alleged possession by the defendant, immediately after the murder of money which the deceased had in her possession when she was attacked. There was much testimony tending to show that within about two hours after the murder the defendant had in his possession a $10 bill, a $5 bill, and either two quarters of a dollar or a 50-cent piece in silver. The evidence tended to show that at the time of his going to supper, a little more than an hour before the supposed time of the murder, and for some time previously, he had no money of any kind, and there was testimony that he gave false and contradictory accounts of the way in which he obtained the bills and silver which he had later in the evening. There was also testimony that, while talking of the death of the murdered woman to a prisoner in the jail, he admitted that he had $10 of her money, and said that, if he had not been drunk, it would not have happened, although at the same time he denied choking her. With this evidence for the consideration of the jury and other circumstantial evidence tending to connect the prisoner with the crime, it was important for the commonwealth, if it could, to introduce additional evidence that the money seen in his possession soon after the murder, was taken from the deceased. All the evidence objected to related to this subject. The objection was general that it was too remote.

The testimony tended to show that the murder was committed at a little after 7 o'clock in the evening of January 8th. There was testimony that at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of January 7th the father of the murdered woman gave her two checks, one of $40, and the other of $39.60 that soon afterwards she went from her home, about a mile, to the village of Shelburne Falls, and gave the check of $39.60 in payment of a bill of $16.53 which she owed, and received the balance in the form of a $10 bill, two $5 bills, and smaller bills, the denominations of which did not appear. She made a payment of $4.18 at the village that afternoon before she returned home, and some others on the next evening, for which she paid sums amounting in all, including a small payment for washing, to $3.06, making the aggregate of payments $7.24 from the $23.07 which she received from the proceeds of the check. There was testimony that she was accustomed to keep her money in a pocketbook, and her pocketbook in a shopping bag. The two checks, and afterwards one of the checks and the money, were so kept on January 7th and on January 8th. The shopping bag and pocketbook, as well as several small articles which she had purchased, were found near her body when the murder was discovered, and in her pocketbook were the $40 check and 8 cents in money, and in the bottom of the bag were 8 cents more. The balance unaccounted for from the proceeds of the check was $15.67. Fifteen...