Commonwealth v. Goulding
| Decision Date | 22 October 1883 |
| Citation | 135 Mass. 552 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. William H. Goulding |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Worcester.
Judgment overruling motion to dismiss affirmed.
J. R. Thayer, for the defendant.
E. J. Sherman, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
OPINION
This is a motion to dismiss a complaint under the Pub. Sts. c. 101, § 9. The complaint alleges that the defendant, on a certain day, was the person having the control of a certain tenement described, and did then and there knowingly permit the said tenement to be used and resorted to for illegal gaming. The chief objection urged is that it does not allege that the defendant maintained, or aided in maintaining, a common nuisance, or that the said tenement was a common nuisance, to the common nuisance of all the citizens of the Commonwealth. As the facts alleged necessarily constituted the offence of aiding in the maintenance of a common nuisance, by the express enactment of the statute, (Pub. Sts. c. 101, §§ 6, 9,) the omitted averments state a mere conclusion of law, and "add nothing to the complaint which the law would not find there without them." They are therefore only formal. Commonwealth v. Lavonsair, 132 Mass. 1, 4. 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 75, §§ 4, 5. In Commonwealth v. Smith, 6 Cush. 80, the acts alleged did not necessarily constitute any offence, and the averment that they were to the common nuisance, &c. was necessary to complete one, and to exclude possible justifications. It follows that, as the motion was first made in the Superior Court after the district court had rendered judgment, it came too late, although we do not mean to intimate that it would have fared better if it had come earlier. Pub. Sts. c. 214, § 25. See Commonwealth v. Doherty, 116 Mass. 13, and cases cited.
The only other objection not waived is that the possibility is not excluded that some other person might have had control of the premises on that part of the day when they were used for gaming. This is still more obviously formal, and has no merit.
Judgment overruling motion to dismiss affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Poling v. Ohio River R. Co.
-
Com. v. Purdy
...146 Mass. 138 15 N.E. 364 COMMONWEALTH v. PURDY. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.February 28, 1888 ... COUNSEL ... [15 ... N.E ... The objections to ... complaint were not seasonably made. Pub.St. c. 214, § 25; ... Com. v. Donahoe, 130 Mass. 280; Com. v ... Goulding, 135 Mass. 552. The evidence of Dowd as to acts ... of Purdy was clearly admissible, as also the testimony of ... Vedetto. It was competent to show ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Carroll
... ... The complaint is under ... section 206, c. 112, Pub.St. The offense is within the ... jurisdiction of the district court. Section 1, c. 233, ... St.1882. The motion to quash was not seasonably made. [14 ... N.E. 621] Chapter 214, § 25, Pub.St; Com. v ... Goulding, 135 Mass. 552; Com. v. Huard, 121 ... Mass. 56. There was a sufficient proof respecting ownership ... of property. See section 14, c. 214; sections 67, 68, c. 169, ... Pub.St. The instruction respecting the missile was correct ... Even if the clause "to-wit, a stone," may not be ... ...
-
State v. Pierce
...Thus it is quite apparent that all the elements necessary to the statutory offense are sufficiently set out in the indictment. Com. v. Goulding, 135 Mass. 552. Exceptions overruled. Judgment for the 1 Reported by Leslie C. Cornish, Esq., of the Augusta bar. ...