Commonwealth v. Gallagher

Decision Date27 November 1878
Citation126 Mass. 54
PartiesCommonwealth v. William Gallagher
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Suffolk. Indictment, charging the defendant with the larceny on September 19, 1878, from the person of John Sheridan, of "divers promissory notes, payable to the bearer on demand, current as money in said Commonwealth, of the amount and of the value of eighty dollars, a more particular description of which is to the jurors unknown."

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., Sheridan testified that his wallet, containing eighty dollars in bank bills, one twenty-dollar bill, six five-dollar bills, and three ten-dollar bills, was taken from him by the defendant on the day alleged in the indictment; that in addition to these bills, the wallet contained two or three small bills ones and twos, left from a five-dollar bill, which he had got changed during the day; that he testified before the grand jury that he had the eighty dollars, but did not mention the other small bills, or tell what the denominations of the bills were; and that he thought no question was asked him about it.

Upon this evidence, the defendant requested the judge to instruct the jury as follows: "1. If the grand jury had a full description of the bills, and if the jury so find on the evidence, it is not competent for the government to say that a more particular description of their value was to them unknown; and the jury should for that reason acquit. 2. The government must prove to a moral certainty that the bills were of the precise amount and value of eighty dollars neither more nor less; and if, upon the evidence, the government has not satisfied the jury of that precise amount, beyond legal doubt, the jury should for that reason acquit. 3. It is not competent for the government, under the description in the indictment, to ask a conviction for the larceny of national bank bills; and if, upon the evidence, the jury find that such were the 'promissory notes' lost by Sheridan, they should acquit the defendant." The judge declined to give these instructions.

The defendant called as a witness one Clark, whose evidence tended to confirm that of the defendant, and to contradict that of Sheridan, as to what transpired at the time of the taking. On the cross-examination of Clark, the government asked him if he was not a friend of the defendant; to which he replied that he was not. He was then asked, "Did you not offer one Alley, or somebody...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Gettigan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1925
    ...of the conviction and could not be controlled or explained by the receipt. The tenth exception is therefore overruled. Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 126 Mass. 54, 56;Commonwealth v. Galligan, 155 Mass. 54, 56, 28 N. E. 1129. [13][14][15] The eleventh exception relates to a telephone conversati......
  • Lang v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 25, 1900
    ...case, as there was no evidence that the grand jury knew the character or denomination of the money alleged to have been stolen. Com. v. Gallagher, 126 Mass. 54. court refused to give the following instruction requested by the accused: 'That the jury have no right to disregard the testimony ......
  • Commonwealth v. Ponzi
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1926
    ...of the record of the federal court, should Ponzi elect to testify in his own behalf in the indictments of larceny. Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 126 Mass. 54;Commonwealth v. Galligan, 155 Mass. 54, 28 N. E. 1129. [6][7] It is evident there was no double jeopardy; the larcenies were from differ......
  • Commonwealth v. Ponzi
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1926
    ...the record of the Federal Court should Ponzi elect to testify in his own behalf in the indictments of larceny. Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 126 Mass. 54 . Commonwealth v. Galligan, 155 Mass. 54. It is evident there was no double jeopardy: the larcenies were from different people at different ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT