Commonwealth v. Bradford

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Colt, J.
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Bradford, 126 Mass. 42 (Mass. 1878)
• Decision Date: 18 November 1878
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Levi Bradford

126 Mass. 42

Commonwealth v. Levi Bradford

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 18, 1878

Hampshire. Indictment in three counts. The second count, upon which alone the defendant was convicted, charged that the defendant, on February 14, 1878, at Williamsburg "feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously did set fire to burn, and consume a certain grist mill and shop there situate, of the property of Herbert L. Bradford and Gilbert M. Bradford, of said Williamsburg; which grist-mill and shop was then, to wit, at the time of committing the felony aforesaid, insured against loss and damage by fire, with intent of him the said Levi Bradford thereby then and there to injure a certain insurance company called the Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company, against the peace of said Commonwealth, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided."

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., the government offered evidence tending to show that the two sons of the defendant, named in the indictment, owned a grist-mill and shop, situate in Williamsburg, which was burned on February 15, 1878; that the same had been conveyed to them by the defendant, by deed dated September 1, 1875, subject to a mortgage made by him to the Haydenville Savings Bank, dated February 15, 1875, to secure his note for $ 2400 payable on demand; that it was understood that the two sons were to assume payment of this mortgage note; that a brother of the defendant was surety upon this note; and desired to be released therefrom; that payment had been demanded of the defendant by the bank; that the defendant, on January 30 1878, had promised to pay the note on February 10 following, or a few days after; that there were two policies of insurance upon the property burned, one of which, for $ 2000, was made by the Springfield, Fire and Marine Insurance Company of Springfield, dated May 30, 1877, for the term of one year; and that the bank received from this insurance company, on April 28, 1878, $ 1797.30, which it applied in part payment of the defendant's note. The evidence relied on by the government to convict the defendant was circumstantial.

The government also offered evidence tending to show that about seven o'clock in the evening of February 12, 1878, the defendant set the mill on fire, which fire was discovered by a neighbor and extinguished. The defendant objected to this evidence, but the judge admitted it, carefully instructing the jury, as requested by the defendant, as to its effect and purpose, and that the only use to which the jury could apply it was as to the intent with which the defendant burned the mill on February 15, as charged in the indictment, if they found him guilty of such burning.

The government also put in evidence a written statement of evidence given by the defendant at a fire inquest, held after the property was burned, which was read over to and signed by him. The defendant objected to all that part thereof relating to the fire of February 12. It was not contended by the defendant that this statement was not made by him voluntarily.

George F. Smith, an insurance broker, testified, subject to defendant's exception, that on January 11, 1878, he had a talk with the defendant at Williamsburg, in which the defendant said the boys were not fully insured, and could n't he go up and see the boys about it.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the second count; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

C. Delano, for the defendant.

C. R. Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Colt, J. Endicott & Soule, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt, J.

The defendant was indicted for wilfully and maliciously...