Com. v. Wright

• Decision Date: 22 May 1896
• Citation: 44 N.E. 129,166 Mass. 174
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. WRIGHT.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

166 Mass. 174

44 N.E. 129

COMMONWEALTH v. WRIGHT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 22, 1896

A portion of the indictment was as follows "The jurors for the commonwealth of Massachusetts, on their oath, present that Joseph Wright, late resident of Maynard, in the county of Middlesex, and commonwealth aforesaid, on the thirteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, with force and arms, at Concord, in the county aforesaid, before the district court of Central Middlesex, holden at Concord, in said county of Middlesex, by John S. Keyes, Esquire, then and there being the standing justice of said court, a certain complaint then pending in said district court of Central Middlesex, between the commonwealth of Massachusetts and Edward T. McManus, for the illegal keeping of intoxicating liquor for sale in this commonwealth, came on to be tried and was then and there in due form of law heard and tried before said court. And the jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further present that upon said trial of said complaint as aforesaid, between the parties aforesaid, said Joseph Wright was then and there, to wit, on said thirteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and nineey-three, at said Concord, in said county of Middlesex, called as a witness, and that said Joseph Wright was then and there duly sworn by said John S. Keyes, then and there being the standing justice of said district court of Central Middlesex, that the evidence which the said Joseph Wright should give to the said district court of Central Middlesex then and there between the parties as aforesaid touching the matter then in question between said commonwealth and the said Edward T. McManus, should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; the said John S. Keyes then and there having sufficient and competent power and authority to administer the said oath to the said Joseph Wright in that behalf."

COUNSEL

H.N. Allin and Thomas Hillis, for plaintiff.

Fred N. Wier, Dist. Atty. Northern Dist., for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

ALLEN J.

1. The first objection to the indictment rests entirely on the difficulty arising from the careless insertion of certain words which make the first part of the indictment senseless as it stands. The indictment undertakes at the outset to set forth the case in which the alleged perjuries were committed and the words "Joseph Wright, late resident of Maynard, in the county of Middlesex, and commonwealth aforesaid," and then, again, the words "with force and arms" are found in this part of the averments, where they have no relevancy or meaning. This error is obvious enough after it is pointed out, and, if the words are rejected, the averments are sufficient to show the regularity of the legal proceedings in the course of which the alleged perjuries were committed. Pub.St. c. 205, § 5. The said words may be rejected as meaningless. 1 Bish.Cr.Proc. § 481, and note and cases ...