Commonwealth v. Hurley

• Decision Date: 25 February 1942
• Citation: 311 Mass. 78,40 N.E.2d 258
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. HURLEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

311 Mass. 78

40 N.E.2d 258

COMMONWEALTH

v.HURLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Feb. 25, 1942.

William A. Hurley was convicted of offering a bribe to a municipal officer, and he appeals.

Judgment affirmed.Appeal from Superior Court, Hampden County; Collins, Judge.

Before FIELD, C. J., and QUA, DOLAN, COX, and RONAN, JJ.

Thomas F. Moriarty, Dist. Atty., of Springfield, and J. F. Kelly, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Holyoke, for plaintiff.

Charles V. Ryan, Jr., of Springfield, for defendant.

RONAN, Justice.

This appeal is based upon certain assignments of error to the refusal of the judge to direct a verdict for the defendant and to give certain requests for rulings at the trial which resulted in a verdict of guilty, of an indictment charging the defendant with offering a bribe to a municipal officer.

The city property committee of the city of Springfield, which was composed of Alderman Barker and councilmen Curto and Brunton, advertised on July 7, 1938, for proposals for boiler insurance which were to be filed on or before five o'clock in the afternoon of July 21, 1938. The defendant, who was engaged in the insurance business, submitted a bid. Shortly after one o'clock on that afternoon, the defendant admittedly sent the following telegram to Barker: ‘Alderman Fred Barker City Hall Springfield Before deciding please see Curto Hurley.’ Up in the right hand corner it bore the legend (‘Don't fone’). At the same time he sent a telegram to Curto which read: ‘Councilman Curto City Hall Springfield Mass.-Two and one half still good. Hurley.’ This telegram also contained in the right hand corner the words (‘don't fone’). There was evidence that the superintendent of public buildings found two telegrams on his desk after he returned from lunch in the middle of the afternoon; that Barker telephoned to him; that he opened the envelope and read the telegram addressed to Barker; that subsequently Barker came into the office and took the telegram; and that Curto came into the office later in the afternoon and the superintendent gave him the other telegram, which Curto opened and read. The bids were opened at the advertised time and the contract was awarded to a person other than the defendant. When interviewed by one Delay, a police officer, he was asked if he had sent any telegrams to the city property committee and he replied that he did not know. He inquired of the officer if he had the telegram and the officer stated that he did not but he had the substance of what it contained. The defendant requested him to give its contents. When the officer informed him that it stated, ‘Offer still open. See Curto before voting,’ and was signed, ‘Hurley,’ the defendant said it sounded like a telegram that he sent Barker. He was then asked to give an explanation of the words ‘Offer still open,’ and he said that he had offered Barker his support for sheriff of Hampden County. In a second interview some two months later with Delay and another police officer, he was asked to give ‘a more plausible explanation for those telegrams then you did to Delay when he was over here.’ The defendant stated that he knew nothing; that he had talked too much already; that he did not know Delay when he first met him; and that the officers ought not to be wasting his time and the taxpayers' money. The defendant testified before the grand jury that he told Delay he had sent that telegram offering his support to Barker for sheriff, and that such an explanation was ridiculous.

The jury could find that the defendant was anxious to obtain the contract for the insurance; that he sent telegrams to two persons, who comprised a majority of the committee, a few hours before the bids were opened and the contract was awarded, informing one member that his offer of ‘Two and one half’ was still good, and advising the second member to see the first member, apparently for the purpose of learning that the defendant's offer was still open; that these two members received the telegrams before they awarded the contract; and that in these circumstances the telegrams referred to this contract for boiler insurance. The jury could also consider the defendant's evasive and equivocal conduct with the police officers and the furnishing of an admittedly false explanation of his purpose in sending the telegram to Barker. They could properly infer that there was no reason for such conduct if the telegram referred to a straightforward, honest business transaction. Commonwealth v. Devaney, 182 Mass. 33, 64 N.E. 402;Commonwealth v. Spezzaro, 250 Mass. 454, 146 N.E. 3;D'Arcangelo v. Tartar, 265 Mass. 350, 164 N.E. 87;Commonwealth v. Alba, 271 Mass. 333, 171 N.E. 458;Boston v. Santosuosso, 307 Mass. 302, 349, 30 N.E.2d 278. Wigmore on Evidence, s. 278.

The words of the telegrams were to be considered in the light of the circumstances in which they were sent. Although the specific and definite amount of the offer does not appear, the jury were warranted in finding that an offer was made to both Barker and Curto of an amount that the defendant had hoped was of sufficient value to influence them to take favorable action in awarding the contract. Proof of an offer of a gift or gratuity with this intent to the two municipal officers would constitute a violation of G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 268, § 7, upon which the indictment was...