Commonwealth v. Fuller
| Citation | 260 Mass. 329,157 N.E. 588 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. FULLER et al. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1927 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Criminal Court, Worcester County; W. Thayer, Judge.
Raymond L. Fuller was convicted of a conspiracy to steal and of stealing money of the Commonwealth of the value of more than $100, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.
H. W. Brown, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston (C. B. Rugg, Dist. Atty., of Worcester, on the brief), for the Commonwealth.
J. H. Schoonmaker, of Springfield, for defendant.
The defendant Fuller was charged with Clark in one indictment with conspiracy to steal and in the other with stealing money of the commonwealth of the value of more than $100. After Clark had pleaded guilty to the conspiracy indictment and the indictment for larceny was nol prossed as to him, he was called as a witness for the commonwealth on the trial of Fuller on both indictments.
The cases relate to obtaining money from the commonwealth for cattle which have reacted to the tuberculin test, and the same statutes and rules are involved as those which have been referred to in Commonwealth v. Jacobson, 157 N. E. 583, this day decided. Repetition of what is stated in the opinion in that case will be omitted except in so far as it may seem necessary to bring out some of the special features of this case.
Clark testified in substance that he was taking care of Fuller's cattle when Fuller asked him to make an application for a tuberculin test of those cattle, and that he made the application in June, 1925. Clark signed the application for such a test of ‘my herd of cattle consisting of sixty,’ agreeing to comply with the rules and regulations prescribed by the director for the application of the test. His signature followed the words, ‘Owner's authorized representative.’ In August he wrote a letter addressed to the department of animal industry as follows:
He talked with Fuller about sending this letter. When the test was made in September, one hundred cows owned by Fuller were on the place. Ninety of these reacted and were tagged for identification. Clark and the veterinarian who applied the test signed the appraisal of these reacting cattle. Fuller signed the report of proceeds of sale of each animal that reacted, entering certain figures under the heading, ‘Net Proceeds Paid to Owner of Each Animal,’ making a total of $1,451, that amount as the net salvage from the animals, and certifying the payment of that amount to Clark or his agent.
Clark signed the claim for reimbursement as owner, in which the appraised value of each of the ninety cows that reacted was given, the salvage for each one corresponding in each case with the sum stated in the report of proceeds of sale; and he certified that no other person had any claim on the animals, that the statement of appraisal and salvage was correct, that he had not by willful act or neglect contributed to the spread of bovine tuberculosis, and made affidavit that the statements were true. The amount thus claimed was one-third of the difference between the appraised value and the sum reported as salvage, in all cases where one-third did not exceed $25 for a grade animal or $50 for a pure-bred animal. In the remaining cases the claim for a grade animal was $25 and for a pure-bred animal $50. The total amount of this claim was $2,620.18. Later Clark received from the treasurer and receiver general of the commonwealth a check to his order for that sum which he indorsed and gave to Fuller. He testified that Fuller at no time paid him $1,451 for cows; that he knew he took a false oath as to the payment to him by Fuller of the proceeds of sale and as to his ownership; that he expected the commonwealth to think he was the owner and to pay him the amount claimed; and that when the cattle cases were being investigated, Fuller said, ‘It is my fault; I got you into it and I'll stand by you.’ He also testified that he did not intend to deceive or get money by false pretenses.
[1][2] There was evidence that the clerk in the division of animal industry, designated in G. L. c. 129, § 4, whose duty it was to approve the papers in this case, relied on the honesty of the sworn statement of Clark that he was owner, and accepted as true the statement of the sworn statement of Clark the reactors of Clark. A live stock commission statement of Fuller that he had purchased cattle for Fuller for a total of $2,962.37. The jury could find from the evidence that ninety of these cattle were those that reacted to the test made upon the application of Clark. There was evidence that the average weight of the ninety-five...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Ries
...Commonwealth v. Morrison, 252 Mass. 116, 123, 147 N.E. 588; Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 254 Mass. 86, 149 N.E. 600; Commonwealth v. Fuller, 260 Mass. 329, 333, 157 N.E. 588; Commonwealth v. Aronson, 312 Mass. 347, 352, 44 N.E.2d 679; Commonwealth v. Mycock, 315 Mass. 262, 266-267, 52 N.E.2d 37......
-
Commonwealth v. Giacomazza
...99 Mass. 444;Commonwealth v. Bishop, 165 Mass. 148, 42 N.E. 560;Commonwealth v. Borasky, 214 Mass. 313, 101 N.E. 377;Commonwealth v. Fuller, 260 Mass. 329, 157 N.E. 588;Commonwealth v. Millen, 289 Mass. 441, 194 N.E. 463. The seventh assignment of error of Giacomazza is to the admission of ......
-
Com. v. O'Brien
...to the crime with which they were charged. See Commonwealth v. West, 357 Mass.---, a 258 N.E.2d 22. See also Commonwealth v. Fuller, 260 Mass. 329, 333--334, 157 N.E. 588. O'Brien contends that he was prejudiced by the testimony of McDowell and Laughran which tended to exculpate themselves ......
-
Com. v. Sousa
...311 Mass. 456, 466, 42 N.E.2d 506, 512. The instruction of the judge to the jury was entirely proper. See Commonwealth v. Fuller, 260 Mass. 329, 334, 157 N.E. 588. 3. It is claimed that it was error for the court to allow the introduction of an exhibit which was a photographic process of an......