Commonwealth v. Maud M. Waterman &Amp; Another
Decision Date | 09 January 1877 |
Citation | 122 Mass. 43 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Commonwealth v. Maud M. Waterman & another |
Argued November 28, 1876 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Indictment for conspiracy as follows:
In the Superior Court, before the jury were empanelled, the defendants Waterman and Marshall, who alone were tried, moved to quash the indictment, for the following reasons:
Aldrich, J., overruled the motion. The defendants were then tried, and a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows, was allowed:
Nicholas A. Apollonio testified that he was the city registrar of Boston, and produced the records of his office, showing that on March 13, 1875, a marriage license was issued to Roderick D. Richardson and Maud M. Waterman, both of Boston, (a notice of intention of marriage having been given on the same day,) and also the certificate of marriage between them, which recited that Roderick D. Richardson and Maud M. Waterman were joined in marriage at 18 Chapman Place, Boston, on March 16, 1875, by Edgar R. Butterworth, Justice of the Peace.
Franklin D. Rideout testified that he was a clerk in the office of the city registrar of Boston, that he saw the man who applied for the marriage license to Maud M. Waterman, and that he gave the name Roderick D. Richardson; that subsequently he was taken by a detective to identify the defendant Marshall, and he could not identify him as the man who took the license for said Roderick and Maud; but at this interview Marshall said to him that he was the man who applied for said license.
Roderick D. Richardson was asked whether or not he was ever married to said Maud. To this the defendants objected; but the judge allowed the question to be put. The witness said he never was married to said Maud; that he first saw her in a house of ill-fame on Oak Street, in Boston, where she then lived, and that he visited her there; that she moved from the house in Oak Street to a house in Warrenton Street, Boston, and he visited her there, and at other places, and paid her board and all her bills and expenses; that in October, 1874, he went with her to the house of Mr. and Mrs. Shorey, No. 18 Chapman Street, Boston, where she boarded, and where the witness went by the name of Waterman, and was there known only by that name, and as her husband; that she always spoke of him there, in the presence of others, as her husband, and of herself as his wife, and that he made no objection to it; that he visited her there in the evening, and was alone with her in her room;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hollingsworth v. State
...the doctrine for which we contend, and we think are easily distinguishable from the case at bar. It may be that the case of Commonwealth v. Waterman, 122 Mass. 43, is in a general way opposed to our view. The statement of facts in that case is very lengthy, but the opinion is a general abst......
-
Attorney Gen. v. Pelletier
...the whole evidence there was sufficient to justify the inference that they were parties to a conspiracy with the respondent. Commonwealth v. Waterman, 122 Mass. 43;Commonwealth v. Riches, 219 Mass. 433, 438, 107 N. E. 371. It was said in Commonwealth v. Smith, 163 Mass. 411, 417, 418, 40 N.......
-
Commonwealth v. Dyer
...Pettibone v. United States, 148 U. S. 197, 203, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419. The principles thus declared were affirmed in Commonwealth v. Waterman, 122 Mass. 43, where it was said, at page 57: ‘It is not always essential that the acts contemplated should constitute a criminal offense, f......
-
Com. v. Stasiun
...admissible against the others, the judge must make a preliminary finding upon evidence aliunde that a conspiracy exists. Commonwealth v. Waterman, 122 Mass. 43, 59. Commonwealth v. Smith, 163 Mass. 411, 418, 40 N.E. 189. Commonwealth v. Rogers, 181 Mass. 184, 193, 63 N.E. 421. In making thi......