Commonwealth v. Ayers
| Decision Date | 16 June 1874 |
| Citation | 115 Mass. 137 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. George A. Ayers |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Complaint under the Gen. Sts. c. 87, §§ 6 7, charging that the defendant did on July 30, 1873, and on divers other days between that day, and January 30, 1874 keep and maintain a certain tenement in Boston, "used for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors," whereby the same was a common nuisance. Trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., who allowed the following bill of exceptions:
Annexed to the bill of exceptions was a copy of the judgment of the Municipal Court for the city of Boston, which recited that on January 10, 1874, George A. Ayers was brought before the court by virtue of a warrant issued January 9, 1874, to answer to a complaint, setting forth that the said Ayers, January 4, 1874, that day being the Lord's day, and between the midnight preceding and the midnight succeeding the same day, at Boston, did keep open his shop, there situate and numbered two, in Bowdoin Square, for the purpose of doing business therein, and that to this complaint he pleaded guilty.
Motion to recommit and exceptions overruled.
S. J. Thomas, for the defendant, moved to recommit the case to the Superior Court, on the ground that the papers showed that a mistake had been made either in the record of the complaint or in the bill of exceptions; and produced a certificate of the clerk of the Municipal Court, that there was no complaint against the defendant in that court, dated January 19, 1874.
The Court, without passing upon the point, directed the bill of exceptions to be argued; and it was argued by Thomas, for the defendant.
C. R. Train, Attorney General, was not called upon.
The complaint charges the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arsenault v. Com.
...an admission which could be used against the defendant appears to have been first challenged in this Commonwealth in 1874 in Commonwealth v. Ayers, 115 Mass. 137. The issue was resolved against the defendant in a per curiam opinion. We think it is reasonable to infer that the old rule had b......
-
Com. v. Devlin
...offence. Commonwealth, v. Haywood, 247 Mass. 16, 19-20, 141 N.E. 571. The plea is an admission of the material facts charged. Commonwealth v. Ayers, 115 Mass. 137. Although Arsenault pleaded not guilty to the indictment for murder in the Superior Court his prior admission was inconsistent w......
-
Hollibaugh and Bunten v. Hehn
... ... brought within the jurisdiction of the court." To the ... same effect are the following: Commonwealth v ... Conlin, 184 Mass. 195, 68 N.E. 207; Ledgerwood v ... State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N.E. 631; State v ... Dibble, 59 Conn. 168, 22 A. 155; State ... People v. McEwen, 67 How. Pr. 105; Green v ... Comm., 94 Mass. 155, 12 Allen 155; People v ... Nall, 67 Cal. 113 (7 P. 164); Com. v. Ayers, ... 115 Mass. 137; Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U.S. 314, 36 ... L.Ed. 986, 13 S.Ct. 105; People v. King, 28 Cal ... 265.) In the last case cited the ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Haywood
...admissible against the accused on the trial of the subsequent indictment. Commonwealth v. Brown, 150 Mass. 330, 23 N. E. 49;Commonwealth v. Ayers, 115 Mass. 137; L. R. A. 1916E, 641, note, and cases cited. But the acknowledgment by the defendant that he had committed adultery with Vina E. S......