Commonwealth v. Crowther

• Decision Date: 08 January 1875
• Citation: 117 Mass. 116
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Hatfield Crowther
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

117 Mass. 116

Commonwealth v. Hatfield Crowther

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 8, 1875

Argued October 27, 1874

Bristol. Indictment on the St. of 1864, c. 79, alleging "that Hatfield Crowther of Fall River, in the county of Bristol, on the nineteenth day of July, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-four, the same being the Lord's day, at Fall River, in the county of Bristol, was the keeper of a certain house, shop and place of public entertainment and refreshment, and did then and there wilfully suffer certain persons whose names are to the jurors unknown, to the number of twenty, to abide and remain in said house, shop and place of business, drinking and spending their time idly; said persons not being then and there travellers, strangers or lodgers in said house, shop and place of said business; and did then and there wilfully entertain said persons, to the said number of twenty, in his said house, shop and place of said business, against the peace of said Commonwealth and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided."

In the Superior Court, before the jury were empaneled, the defendant moved to quash the indictment and assigned the following causes therefor:

"1. The defendant is charged as the keeper of a certain house shop and place of public entertainment and refreshment, and subsequently in the same count, that said defendant did suffer certain persons whose names are to the jurors unknown to abide and remain in said house, shop and place of business, drinking, &c., when it is not previously set out that said defendant had any place of business.

"2. It does not appear by the allegation in said count that said persons, alleged to be spending their time idly, were so spending it in the aforesaid place of public entertainment and refreshment.

"3. It is alleged that said persons in said place of business were not travellers, strangers or lodgers, leaving the charge indefinite whether they were either travellers, strangers or lodgers.

"4. On account of the uncertainty, insufficiency and want of direct and certain and consistent allegations in said indictment against said defendant.

"5. It does not appear in said indictment where said house, shop and place of public entertainment and refreshment is situated, whether in the county of Bristol or elsewhere."

This motion was overruled by Allen J., and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

...