Commonwealth v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 07 December 1922 |
| Citation | 243 Mass. 286 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. EDWARD HUNT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
December 6, 1922.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., DE COURCY CROSBY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.
Evidence, Relevancy and materiality. Witness, Credibility, Impeachment.
At the trial in the Superior Court of a complaint charging the defendant with being the father of a child of the complainant, who was not his wife, it was proper for the judge to refuse to permit the complainant to be asked on cross-examination, after she had testified that she never had been married, whether she had given birth to other children.
At the trial above described, it was proper for the judge to refuse to permit an attorney at law, who had acted as counsel for the State board of public welfare through the trial in a district court where the complaint had been filed, to be asked "if he had made any investigation as to the complainant's reputation for veracity."
COMPLAINT, received and sworn to in the District Court of Lowell on May 8, 1922 charging the defendant with being the father of a child born to the complainant, not the wife of the defendant, on March 23, 1922.
On appeal to the Superior Court, there was a trial before Hammond, J. The complainant testified as to the circumstances of intercourse with the defendant and answered in the negative a question asked by the district attorney, "if she had had intercourse with any man between May and August, 1921, except the defendant." The judge, subject to an exception by the defendant, refused to permit her to be asked in cross-examination after she had testified that she never had been married, "if she had given birth to any other children."
The judge also subject to an exception by the defendant, refused to permit an attorney at law, who, as counsel for the State board of public welfare, had prosecuted the case through the district court, to be asked on cross-examination "if he had made any investigation as to the complainant's reputation for veracity."
The defendant was found guilty, and alleged exceptions. The case was submitted on briefs.
M. Collingwood, for the defendant.
E. P. Saltonstall, District Attorney, & L.
Saltonstall, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
BY THE COURT. This is a complaint charging the defendant with being the father of a child of a woman who had never married. There was evidence to support the charge. There was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. United Food Corp.
...by a person not a member of the community. Commonwealth v. Baxter, 267 Mass. 591, 593, 166 N.E. 742 (1929); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 243 Mass. 286, 287, 137 N.E. 268 (1922). See 3 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 692 (Chadbourn rev.1970). The police officers made no special investigations, and were memb......
-
Commonwealth v. Baxter
...of the complainant to investigate her character is not permitted to testify as to the result of his inquiries. Commonwealth v. Hunt, 243 Mass. 286, 287, 137 N. E. 268;Douglass v. Tousey, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 352, 354, 20 Am. Dec. 616;People v. Loris, 131 App. Div. 127, 129, 115 N. Y. S. 236. The......
-
Commonwealth v. Baxter
...of the complainant to investigate her character is not permitted to testify as to the result of his inquiries. Commonwealth v. Hunt, 243 Mass. 286 , 287. Douglass v. Tousey, 2 Wend. 352, 354. People v. Loris, 131 App. Div. (N.Y.) 127, 129. The testimony sought to be introduced in the case a......
- Daniels v. Daniels.