Commonwealth v. John D. Noxon &Amp; Another
| Decision Date | 28 September 1876 |
| Citation | 121 Mass. 42 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. John D. Noxon & another |
Berkshire. Indictment for a nuisance, in Main Street, in Great Barrington. In the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J the facts were agreed to be substantially as follows:
The alleged nuisance was the dwelling-house of the defendants which stood, at the time of the finding of the indictment where it had always stood, since it was built about twenty-seven years before, and during all this time it had been uninterruptedly occupied by the defendants, or their tenants. The highway in question was widened and relocated by the county commissioners of Berkshire, in 1852, and one of the east lines of the highway as relocated is described in the report of the commissioners, substantially as follows: "passing through the house of Rodney Hill and Peter Crosta, six feet from the front of the main part of the same, and it is ordered that said house be permitted to remain on its present site during its natural life only." The above described house, being the alleged nuisance, was the house referred to in the report of the county commissioners, and if in the highway it was there by reason of the relocation, and had remained there by reason of the permission supposed to have been granted in the location as above quoted. It was contended by the government that the county commissioners had no authority to grant permission for the house to remain in the highway, and that the defendants were indictable for maintaining the same, and the judge so ruled.
It was also agreed that only a portion of the highway in question was known as Main Street, a part thereof and the part on which the dwelling stood, being commonly known as Water Street; but the part whereon the dwelling stood was sometimes covered by the name of Main Street, in general speech. For this reason the defendants contended that there was a material variance between the allegations describing the highway in the indictment, and the facts in reference thereto as agreed; but the judge ruled otherwise, and instructed the jury to return a verdict of guilty against both of the defendants. The defendants alleged exceptions.
Exceptions sustained.
H. C. Joyner, for the defendants.
C. R. Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
As we understand this bill of exceptions, which purports to present substantially all the facts of the case, it was an error to direct the jury to return a verdict of guilty. The only nuisance to the highway, imputed to the defendants, consisted in their omission to remove their dwelling-house from its ancient position, to a spot outside of the limits of the way as widened and relocated. Whenever a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broderick v. Dep't of Mental Diseases of Commonwealth of Massachusetts
...where land was taken for highway purposes that the taking was valid, although this provision of the statute was not observed. Commonwealth v. Noxon, 121 Mass. 42;Choate v. Sharon (Mass.) 156 N. E. 727. See Byfield v. Newton, 247 Mass. 46, 141 N. E. 658. The taking of an easement in the high......
-
Denniston v. Clark
... ... 133, 143. Adams v ... Emerson, 6 Pick. 57. Commonwealth v ... Noxon, 121 Mass. 42. Tucker v ... Eldred, 6 R.I ... another; and it is accordingly well settled that the public ... in ... ...
-
Broderick v. Department of Mental Diseases
...where land was taken for highway purposes that the taking was valid although this provision of the statute was not observed. Commonwealth v. Noxon, 121 Mass. 42 . Choate Sharon, 259 Mass. 478. See Byfield v. Newton, supra. The taking of an easement in the highway cases does not distinguish ......
-
Everett v. City of Fall River
... ... the respondent was entitled to a verdict for another reason ... Indeed, the case of Baker v. Fall River, 187 ... St. 1882, c. 49, § 14. Commonwealth v. Noxon, 121 ... Mass. 42, 44; La Croix v. Medway, 12 ... ...