Commonwealth v. Dejardin
| Decision Date | 11 November 1878 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Charles T. Dejardin |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Bristol.
Exceptions sustained.
M. Reed & H. A. Dubuque, for the defendant.
C. R Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
The defendant is indicted under the St. of 1862, c. 168, § 1, which provides tat "whoever imports, prints, publishes, sells, or distributes any book, pamphlet, ballad, printed paper, or other thing containing obscene, indecent or impure language, or any obscene, indecent or impure prints, pictures, figures, or descriptions, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth; or introduces into any family, school or place of education; or buys, procures, receives, or has in his possession any such book, pamphlet, ballad, printed paper, or other thing, either for the purpose of sale, exhibition, loan or circulation, or with intent to introduce the same into any family, school or place of education, shall be punished" by imprisonment in the state prison, or by fine and imprisonment in the jail.
It is clear that this indictment is founded on the first clause of the statute. This clause prohibits the importation, printing, publishing, selling, or distributing "any book, pamphlet, ballad, printed paper, or other thing," containing obscene, indecent or impure language, or containing any obscene, indecent or impure prints, pictures, figures or descriptions, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth. The second and fourth sections, providing for issuing search-warrants for "any obscene, indecent or impure books, pamphlets, ballads, printed papers or other things," tend strongly to show that such is the true construction of the first section. An indictment under this clause should aver that the defendant imported, printed, published, sold, or distributed a book, pamphlet, ballad, printed paper or other thing, describing it, containing obscene or indecent language, or obscene or indecent prints, pictures, figures or descriptions, describing them, or giving an excuse for not particularly describing them. Commonwealth v. Holmes, 17 Mass. 336. Commonwealth v. Tarbox, 1 Cush. 66. The general words "or other thing" must be construed to mean or other thing of like kind. The maxim noscitur a sociis applies.
The indictment in this case avers that the defendant "unlawfully and scandalously did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Butler
...are in issue, acts of a similar character are admissible. Wharton's Criminal Evidence (9 Ed.), sec. 46; 9 Conn. 47; 37 N.H. 196; 126 Mass. 46; 4 Parker's Cr. Rep. 71; 99 St. 388; 17 Ala. 618; 7 Tex.App. 5. Jos. W. Folk, circuit attorney, also for the State. (1) The ordinance providing for t......
-
State v. Dewey
...be rejected as surplusage, if it is descriptive of the identity of that which is legally essential to the charge.' In Commonwealth v. Dejardin, 126 Mass. 46, 30 Am.Rep. 652, defendant was charged in the indictment with printing and publishing obscene pictures of naked girls. The proof showe......
-
Council of City of Hamtramck v. Matulewicz
...classes are, therefore, to be read as ‘other such like,’ and to include only others of like kind or character. Commonwealth v. Dejardin, 126 Mass. 46, 30 Am.Rep. 652;Wood v. Williams, 142 Ill. 269, 31 N.E. 681,34 Am.St.Rep. 79; Rasure v. Hart, 18 Kan. 340, 26 Am.Rep. 772; Patton v. State, 9......
-
Wilhite v. State
...S.W. 725; Roscoe's Crim. Ev. 101-2; 3 Sumner, 12; 15 Me. 476; 30 Me. 29; 67 Me. 567; 19 N.H. 133; 34 N.H. 529; 11 Mass. 93; 20 Pick. 356; 126 Mass. 46. 2. court erred in refusing to give instruction No. 1 requested by defendant. 71 Ark. 399. 3. It was error to charge the jury that, "the def......