Commonwealth v. Henry

• Decision Date: 31 December 1917
• Citation: 229 Mass. 19
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. JAMES E. HENRY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

229 Mass. 19

COMMONWEALTH v. JAMES E. HENRY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

December 31, 1917

December 6, 1917.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., BRALEY, CROSBY PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.

Motor Vehicle. Words, "Operated."

If one driving a motor car leaves it standing in a public highway at any time between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise with all the lights extinguished and the engine at rest, he is operating the car unlawfully and may be convicted on a complaint under St. 1909,

c. 534, Section 7, as amended by St.

1915, c. 16 Section 3.

Whether the same offence would be committed after the car had been left in the highway an unreasonable time or if it had been abandoned there, were referred to as questions which it was not necessary to consider in the present case.

COMPLAINT, received and sworn to in the First District Court of Eastern Middlesex on May 5, 1915, under St. 1909, c. 534, Section 7, as amended by St. 1915, c. 16, Section 3, charging that the defendant on May 3, 1915, at Malden "did operate a certain automobile in and upon a certain public street, to wit: Pleasant Street in said Malden, during the period of from one half an hour after sunset to one half an hour before sunrise, without displaying at least two white lights, visible not less than two hundred feet in the direction toward which he was proceeding and without displaying at least one red light in the reverse direction."

On appeal to the Superior Court the case was tried before Raymond, J. A statement of the facts which were agreed upon by the Commonwealth and the defendant is quoted in the opinion.

The defendant asked the judge to rule and instruct the jury as follows: "1. There is no evidence in the case warranting a conviction that the defendant operated an automobile unlawfully, and you should return a verdict of not guilty.

"2. There is no evidence warranting a conviction that the defendant operated an automobile without its being properly lighted and you should return a verdict of not guilty.

"3. Unless you find the defendant's automobile was in motion and that he was driving the same, you must find him not guilty of the offence charged in the complaint.

"4. If you find that the defendant, upon leaving his automobile standing in the street, turned out the lights thereof, the presence of the automobile in the street thereafter was not operation on his part, and your verdict should be for the defendant."

The judge refused to make any of these rulings. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

St. 1909, c.

534, Section 7, as amended by St. 1915, c. 16, Section 3, after provisions in regard to brakes, mufflers, means of signalling and contrivances to prevent motor vehicles being set in motion by unauthorized persons, is as follows: "Every automobile operated during the period from one half an hour after sunset to one half an hour before sunrise shall display at least two white lights, and every motor cycle so operated at least one white light, which shall be visible not less than two hundred feet in the direction toward which the vehicle is proceeding; and every such motor vehicle shall display at least one red light in the reverse direction. Every automobile so operated shall have a rear light so placed as to show a red light from behind and a white light so arranged as to illuminate and not obscure the rear register number."

The case was submitted on briefs.

W. A. Thibodeau & G.

L. Ellsworth, for the defendant.

N. A. Tufts, District Attorney, & F.

W. Fosdick, Deputy District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

CROSBY, J. The defendant is charged with violation of the provisions of St 1909, c. 534, Section 7, as amended by St. 1915, c. 16, Section 3. He was found guilty by the First District Court of Eastern Middlesex, and appealed. At the trial in the Superior Court he excepted to the refusal of the presiding judge to give to the jury four instructions, each of which in effect amounted to a ruling that he was entitled to an acquittal upon the agreed facts. The facts agreed upon are as follows:

"It is hereby agreed between the government and the defendant that on May 3, 1915, at about 8:30 in the evening, more than half an hour after sunset on said date the defendant...