Commonwealth v. Jenks
Decision Date | 07 January 1885 |
Citation | 138 Mass. 484 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Commonwealth v. James Jenks & another |
Indictment against James Jenks and Elisha Douglass, charging them with the larceny, on January 17, 1884, at Boston, of divers promissory notes of the amount and value of $ 50, of the property of one John McGrath. Trial in the Superior Court before Staples, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
Before the jury were empaneled, the defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment, "because the same is uncertain indefinite, and insufficient." The judge overruled the motion; and the defendants excepted.
McGrath was called as a witness by the government, and testified that the property stolen from him was certain national bank bills in the usual form, of the amount and value, in all, of fifty dollars. The defendants asked the judge to rule that such bank-bills would not be covered by the indictment; and that there was a variance. The judge ruled otherwise, and admitted the testimony; and the defendants excepted.
The contention of the government was, that the two defendants, acting in concert and as confederates, stole from McGrath the money described in the indictment, on the day named therein, at a drinking-saloon in Boston.
Morris Kylie testified for the government, that he saw Jenks at West Newton three weeks before, and heard him say to McGrath that he wanted a settlement.
Dennis Connors testified for the government, that he saw Douglass and McGrath go into a saloon together; that he saw Douglass come out, McGrath following, and saying that he had lost fifty dollars; that he saw another man, whose face he did not see; that after Douglass was arrested he said he would give up the money if the old man would go back to the store.
Joseph H. Knox, an officer, testified for the government, as follows:
One Lynch, an officer, testified for the government, as follows:
McGrath testified for the government as follows:
On cross-examination, he testified as follows:
McGrath, on cross-examination, further testified:
The defendants offered no...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Mannos
...523. Commonwealth v. Murphy, 2 Gray, 510. Commonwealth v. Tryon, 99 Mass. 442 . Commonwealth v. Weatherhead, 110 Mass. 175. Commonwealth v. Jenks, 138 Mass. 484 Commonwealth v. Madeiros, 255 Mass. 304. Upon a joint indictment charging an offence not requiring joint action as conspiracy or r......
-
Commonwealth v. Madeiros
...in the indictment participated in the crime. The defendant alone might be convicted although four were indicted jointly. Commonwealth v. Jencks, 138 Mass. 484 , 488. A ruling seasonably requested to the effect that the defendant is presumed to be innocent. It is the established practice to ......
- Commonwealth v. Collins
-
Commonwealth v. Lannan
...a lien upon them until he could withdraw his pay. It is not argued that the averment as to promissory notes is not sustained. Com. v. Jenks, 138 Mass. 484, 488. overruled. ...