Commonwealth v. Hartford

• Decision Date: 02 January 1907
• Citation: 79 N.E. 784,193 Mass. 464
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. HARTFORD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

193 Mass. 464

79 N.E. 784

COMMONWEALTH v. HARTFORD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 2, 1907

COUNSEL

Michael J. Dwyer, for the Commonwealth.

Samuel R. Cutler and Harry W. James, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

Because guilty knowledge of its contents is not specifically averred and only the general allegation appears that she 'knowingly' distributed a circular or advertisement the defendant's first contention is that no criminal offense has been described, and the motions to quash should have been granted. Com. v. Boynton, 12 Cush. 499. Compare Rosen v. United States, 160 U.S. 29, 16 S.Ct. 434, 480, 40 L.Ed. 606; Price v. United States, 165 U.S. 311, 17 S.Ct. 366, 41 L.Ed. 727. But the indictment follows the language of Rev. Laws, c. 212, § 16, as amended by St. 1905, p. 235, c. 316, as to the first of the offenses created and defined, and under Rev. Laws, c 218, §§ 17, 29, the crime charged may be set forth in the words used in the statute, with a general averment that the defendant committed the act, which obviates any further technical description of an evil intent. Com. v. Hersey, 2 Allen, 173, 180; Com. v. Lavery, 188 Mass. 13, 16, 73 N.E. 884. If there was any uncertainty as to the particulars of the offense further information would have been furnished upon the defendant's motion if otherwise the charge had not been plainly and substantially stated. Rev. Laws, c. 218, § 39; Com. v. Kelley, 184 Mass. 320, 68 N.E. 346; Com. v. McDonald, 187 Mass. 581, 73 N.E. 852. This course was not taken, and the indictment being sufficient the motions were properly denied.

The defendant's further contention is that in substance the entire testimony introduced by the commonwealth was incompetent. While the acts made criminally punishable are distinct from the crime of procuring an abortion, evidence describing the rooms with their furnishings, the envelopes addressed to physicians containing similar cards, and her statements relating to the origin of her acquaintance with the officer to whom she had given the card described in the indictment, was properly admitted, not only as being descriptive either of the defendant's place of business, or of her employment, but also as indicative of her guilty knowledge of its contents. Com. v. Devaney, 182 Mass. 33, 36, 64 N.E. 402; Com. v. Bond, 188 Mass. 91, 93, 94, 74 N.E. 293. It is true that mere possession of this card was not a crime, for the offense charged is its distribution or circulation as a paper conveying information where operations were performed for the purpose of procuring the miscarriage of pregnant women, but if intentionally handed to a patient who was seeking such treatment the offense would have been complete, and this equally would be true if the receiver was inquiring as to similar aid in behalf of a proposed patient. The weight of the defendant's argument, therefore, is that because it was procured by false representations there was no proof either of distribution or of...