Commonwealth v. Burlington

• Decision Date: 31 January 1884
• Citation: 136 Mass. 435
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Burkner F. Burlington
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

136 Mass. 435

Commonwealth v. Burkner F. Burlington

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 31, 1884

Argued November 26, 1883

Middlesex. Complaint to the First District Court of Eastern Middlesex, on the St. of 1882, c. 270, § 4, alleging "that Burkner F. Burlington, late resident of Wakefield in the county of Middlesex, is the father of one Mary L Burlington, a minor child under the age of twenty-one years and that the said Burkner F. Burlington, on the first day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, at Wakefield, in the county of Middlesex, did knowingly and unreasonably neglect to provide for the support of the said Mary L. Burlington, the minor child of him, the said Burkner F. Burlington, and that the said Burkner F. Burlington, the father of the said Mary L. Burlington, the minor child aforesaid, from the said first-mentioned day to the day of making this complaint, at Wakefield aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, knowingly and unreasonably has neglected to provide for the support of the said Mary L. Burlington, the minor child aforesaid, against the peace of the said Commonwealth and the form of the statute in such case made and provided."

In the Superior Court, before the jury were empanelled, the defendant moved to quash the complaint, on the ground of the insufficiency of the averments therein. Knowlton, J., overruled the motion; and the defendant excepted.

At the trial, Henry L. Haskell testified, for the government, that he had two conversations with the defendant, one on June 15, 1882, and the other one week later, respecting the law which was about to come into effect, [the St. of 1882, c. 270, which took effect on June 26, 1882,] and the future support of his child. The witness was then asked by the government "what the defendant said at those times about the future support of said child." The defendant objected to this question, but the judge admitted it; and the witness then testified that "he spoke to the defendant about the law coming into effect soon," and the defendant said "he would do nothing about supporting the child; that he would break up his business and leave the country first, unless he could control the old lady's (his mother-in-law's) property."

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

Exceptions overruled.

A. V Lynde, for the defendant.

E. J Sherman, Attorney General, for the...