Commonwealth v. Langley

• Decision Date: 29 June 1897
• Citation: 47 N.E. 511,169 Mass. 89
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. LANGLEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

169 Mass. 89

47 N.E. 511

COMMONWEALTH v. LANGLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 29, 1897

COUNSEL

M.J. Sughrue, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Curry & Sondheim, for defendant.

OPINION

BARKER J.

1. The motion to quash was rightly overruled. The objections stated in it were general, and were not assigned specifically, as required by the statutes. See Pub.St. c. 214, § 25; Com v. Sholes, 13 Allen, 554; Com. v. Intoxicating Liquors, 105 Mass. 176; Com. v. Murray, 135 Mass. 530; Com. v. Jenks, 138 Mass. 484. Besides this, the indictment was good.

2. The defendant contends that he was not guilty, because the title of the property out of which he cheated the persons whom he defrauded by his false pretenses, and which so came into his possession as treasurer of the corporation, did not pass to himself, but to the corporation. It was not necessary to allege or prove that he got the property on his own account or that he derived or expected to derive personally any gain. Com. v. Harley, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 462. An intent to defraud, accompanied by the actual commission of a fraud, by means of the false pretenses used for the purpose of perpetrating it, constitutes the offense. Com. v Drew, 19 Pick. 179, 182; Com. v. McDuffy, 126 Mass. 467. If, by the use of false pretenses, one is defrauded, by being induced to part with his possession of property, and to confide it to the defendant when he would not otherwise have done so, the defendant is guilty of the offense. Com. v. Coe, 115 Mass. 481, 502. A person who is an officer of a corporation must answer personally for the crimes which he commits while acting in his official capacity, as well those where the wrong is done to third persons for the benefit of the corporation, as in the more ordinary case where the wrong is done to the corporation for the benefit of himself. Com. v. Moore, 166 Mass. 513, 44 N.E. 612. In the present case there was no allegation that the defendant intended to acquire the property for himself, but only to obtain and get it into his hands and possession. Aside from some possible question of variance, this was enough, and no question of variance was raised at the trial or argued here.

3. The remaining contention made by the defendant's brief is, in substance, that evidence that the money obtained by his frauds was disbursed by the corporation, and that he personally received no benefit from it, was competent in his defense. So far as this contention is founded upon the theory that the offense was not committed unless he...