Commonwealth v. Baxter

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: CROSBY
• Citation: 267 Mass. 591,166 N.E. 742
• Decision Date: 08 June 1929
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. BAXTER.

267 Mass. 591
166 N.E. 742

COMMONWEALTH
v.
BAXTER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 8, 1929.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; John M. Gibbs, Special Judge.

Bastardy prosecution by the Commonwealth against John Baxter. Defendant was found guilty, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

[267 Mass. 592]R. E. McGuire and J. J. Murphy, Asst. Dist. Attys., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.

267 Mass. 591]J. F. Barry of Boston, for defendant.
CROSBY, J.

On a complaint issued from the municipal court of the West Roxbury district of the city of Boston, under G. L. c. 273, § 11, alleging that on or about April 5, 1928, at Boston and within the judicial district of said court, the defendant, not being the husband of the complainant, did get her with child, he was adjudged the father of said child. The defendant appealed, and was found guilty by a jury. The case is here on the defendant's exceptions to the exclusion of certain evidence, and to the refusal of the trial judge to grant the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the ground of a variance between the evidence and the allegations of the complaint respecting the place where the offense was alleged to have been committed.

One Davies, not a member of the community where the complainant resided, was employed by the defendant as an investigator. He testified that he had interviewed five named persons, and that he had learned upon inquiry, and knew of, the complainant's general reputation with respect to truth and veracity. He was asked, ‘What did you find her reputation in this respect to be?‘ The question was excluded by the trial judge subject to the defendant's exception. The defendant offered to show that if permitted to answer the witness would testify that the reputation of the complainant with respect to truth and veracity was bad. This exception cannot be sustained. The complainant's reputation for truth and veracity could be shown only by evidence of her general reputation in the community as disclosed by the common speech of her neighbors and members of the community.

[166 N.E. 743

Commonwealth v. Lawler, 12 Allen, 585, 586;Commonwealth v. Porter, 237 Mass. 1, 4, 129 N. E. 298;Clark v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, 254 Mass. 441, 443, 150 N. E. 184. It cannot be shown by what the impeaching witness ‘may have heard others say who numerically may be few and insignificant,’ F. W. Stock & Sons v. Dellapenna, 217 Mass. 503, 506, 105 N. E. 378, 379, nor by what the impeaching witness may have heard said on two occasions which he specifies, [267 Mass. 593]Commonwealth v. Rogers, 136 Mass. 158. A stranger sent by a party to the neighborhood of the complainant to investigate her character is not permitted to testify as to the result of his inquiries. Commonwealth v. Hunt, 243 Mass. 286, 287, 137 N. E. 268;Douglass v. Tousey, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 352, 354, 20 Am. Dec. 616;People v. Loris, 131 App. Div. 127, 129, 115 N. Y. S. 236. The testimony sought to be introduced in the case at bar was the result of the witness' inquiries of five individuals. The witness not being a member of the community had no knowledge of the reputation of the complainant other than what he learned from these individuals. So far as the witness was concerned his knowledge rested on...