Commonwealth v. Connor

• Decision Date: 05 December 1891
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Connor, 155 Mass. 134, 29 N.E. 204 (Mass. 1891)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. CONNOR.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

155 Mass. 134

29 N.E. 204

COMMONWEALTH v. CONNOR.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

December 5, 1891

COUNSEL

A.E. Pillsbury and Geo. C. Traves, for the Commonwealth.

N.P Moulton and H.T. Bartlett, for defendant.

OPINION

BARKER J.

The complaint addressed "to the justice of the second district court of Essex" purports to have been "received and sworn to *** before said court." The jurat is signed, "William Smeath, special justice of said court." The warrant annexed to the complaint bears the seal of the court, and not the personal seal of William Smeath. The summons recites that complaint has been made "before our second district court of Essex," and also bears the seal of the court. The defendant moved in that court to quash the complaint, because it did not appear that when the complaint was received and summons issued the justice of the court was sick, interested, absent, or otherwise disabled, or had requested the special justice to sit or act, or that the office of justice was vacant, the motion concluding with the argumentative allegation "And so it does not appear that said complaint was received, the summons issued, or any proceedings had before any magistrate having authority or jurisdiction. " This motion must have called the attention of the district court to the objection urged against its jurisdiction, but no statement was inserted in the record to the effect that the court was not in session when the complaint was received, or that any fact existed which gave the special justice authority to hold a session of the court. The motion was renewed in the superior court, and no amendment of the record was there offered. From this we feel bound to infer that the complaint was received and the...