Commonwealth v. Greenlaw

Decision Date27 November 1875
Citation119 Mass. 208
PartiesCommonwealth v. Jeremiah A. Greenlaw
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Suffolk. Indictment for subornation of perjury. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., at July term 1875, the defendant was found guilty, and alleged exceptions to the rulings at the trial. The certificate of the judge upon the bill of exceptions was as follows:

"I have examined the foregoing bill of exceptions, and find the same to be conformable to the truth; and I allow the same, provided the Supreme Judicial Court shall be of opinion that I have a right in my discretion so to do, upon the following facts: No bill of exceptions was filed with the clerk in this case, until after the adjournment of the court without day. The verdict in this case was rendered on the last day but one of the term, and, on the next day after verdict, that being the last day of the term, a bill of exceptions was filed, but not until after the final adjournment of the court without day. The time for filing said exceptions was not extended by the court, no application therefor having been made to the court, and no memorandum in relation thereto was made upon the docket. The government did not assent that any bill of exceptions should be filed in this case."

Exceptions dismissed.

A. R. Brown & E. A. Alger, for the defendant.

C. R. Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Gray, C. J. Colt, J., absent.

OPINION

Gray, C. J.

The provision of the Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7, is explicit, that bills of exceptions shall be presented to the court within three days after the verdict in the case, or the ruling excepted to, and before the adjournment without day of the term at which the exceptions are taken, unless the court, for good cause shown, allows further time. Application for an extension of the time must be made before the time given by the statute has expired. In the present case, no exceptions having been presented to the presiding judge, or application made to him for an extension of the time for presenting them, until after the final adjournment of the term, he had no authority to allow them without the consent of the adverse party. Barstow v. Marsh, 4 Gray 165. Phillips v. Soule, 6 Allen 150. Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 362. Ex parte Bradstreet, 4 Pet. 102. United States v. Breitling, 20 How. 252.

Exceptions dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Davis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1933
    ...to present the question whether the additions could rightly be made to the exceptions over the objection of the plaintiff. Commonwealth v. Greenlaw, 119 Mass. 208. The exceptions to which a party is entitled are those set forth in his bill of exceptions as filed. Morse v. Woodworth, 155 Mas......
  • Crowe v. Corp. of Charlestown
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 18, 1907
    ... ... five days only by consent. Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 ... Mass. 362; Walker v. Moors, 122 Mass. 501; Comm ... v. Greenlaw, 119 Mass. 208; Barstow v. Marsh (4 ... Gray) 70 Mass. 165 ...          Under ... the statute of Georgia, every bill of exceptions is ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Davis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1933
    ... ... upon the validity of the tax are printed in a foot note ...        This was the proper ... form in which to present the question whether the additions ... could rightly be made to the exceptions over the objection of ... the plaintiff. Commonwealth v. Greenlaw, 119 Mass ...        The exceptions to ... which a party is entitled are those set forth in his bill of ... exceptions as filed. Morse v. Woodworth, 155 Mass ... 233 , 241. A bill of exceptions is not to be construed so ... strictly that if it appears from the draft presented that ... ...
  • Martin v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1890
    ...has expired, the circuit court loses all control over the same, and cannot exercise any discretion whatever. 45 Ark. 102; 39 Ark. 216; 119 Mass. 208; 121 Mass. 165; 123 Mass. 579; 124 Mass. 69 Ind. 290; 98 Ill. 235; 56 Iowa 335; 8 Bush, 480; 6 Bush, 27; 5 Col. 133; 17 Munroe, 603; 90 Ind. 4......
  • 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