Commonwealth v. McLaughlin

• Decision Date: 04 May 1877
• Citation: 122 Mass. 449
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Edward McLaughlin
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

122 Mass. 449

Commonwealth v. Edward McLaughlin

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

May 4, 1877

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Indictment for perjury, as follows: "The jurors for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on their oath present that at a term of the Superior Court, begun and holden on the first Monday of May, in the said year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, at Boston aforesaid, holden for the transaction of criminal business at Boston, within and for said county of Suffolk, to wit, on the twenty-fourth day of May, in the year aforesaid, one John F. Costello duly filed his motion in writing, in said court, praying for a new trial to be granted him, said Costello, upon this ground, among others: of evidence therein set forth by affidavits, and alleged to be then newly discovered, upon a certain indictment then pending in said court, charging him, said Costello, in several counts, with the crime of forgery, and of knowingly uttering forged bonds; upon all the counts of which said indictment, said Costello had lately, to wit, within one year theretofore, been duly tried and found guilty by a jury of the county, but upon which indictment no sentence had then been passed, nor judgment given; that thereafter, to wit, on the second day of June, in the year aforesaid, said motion was duly heard by and before the Honorable Waldo Colburn, one of the justices of said court, at his chambers, at said Boston; that at said hearing it became, and was, a material matter of inquiry, whether one Edward McLaughlin had written, on the twentieth day of November, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, or at any time in said year last named, the words Edward McLaughlin,' upon a certain book, called a hotel register, produced at said hearing, and then exhibited to said McLaughlin, and whether he, said McLaughlin, in said last named year, saw any one, and if so, whom, write upon said book, at a certain inn in said Boston, called the New England House, the words, William P. Schell, appearing upon said book, and then viewed at said hearing by said McLaughlin, (he being present thereat,) and that at said hearing, before said justice, at Boston aforesaid, on said second day of June, said Edward McLaughlin, of said Boston, offered himself as a witness in said hearing, in behalf of said Costello, and was then and there duly sworn by said justice to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in the matter aforesaid then in hearing; and that said McLaughlin, being so sworn, as aforesaid, did then and there knowingly, falsely, wilfully, and corruptly testify and say, in substance, as follows, that is to say: That in the said year last mentioned, he, said McLaughlin, was in said New England House, with one Frank Hayes, of said Boston, and that he, said McLaughlin, at said inn, wrote in said book the words, Edward McLaughlin,' and that at said time and place, when and where he, said McLaughlin, wrote said words, Edward McLaughlin,' he, said McLaughlin, saw said Frank Hayes write said words, William P. Schell,' upon said book, immediately before he, said McLaughlin, wrote his name thereon. Whereas, in truth and in fact, neither said Hayes nor said McLaughlin were in said inn together at any time, and said Hayes did not write at any time said words William P. Schell;' all of which said McLaughlin, at the time he so deposed and swore, as aforesaid, then and there well knew.

"And so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do present and say that said McLaughlin, on said second day of June, before said justice, having full power and authority, as aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid, did commit wicked and wilful perjury; against the law, peace, and dignity of said Commonwealth, and the form of the statute in such case made and provided."

In the Superior Court, before the jury were empanelled, the defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment on the following grounds: "1. Because the said indictment avers and shows that the said motion for a new trial, upon the hearing of which the said defendant is alleged to have committed the crime of perjury, was heard and tried by and before the Honorable Waldo Colburn, one of the justices of this court, "at his chambers," at said Boston; and because the hearing of said motion in chambers, as set out in said indictment, was irregular, unauthorized, improper and illegal. 2. Because said indictment does not assign any perjury (alleged to have been committed by the defendant) in a direct, positive and precise manner, as is required by law. 3. Because the only perjury charged in said indictment is assigned inferentially and argumentatively."

Putnam J., overruled the motion, and the defendant was then tried. The evidence offered by the government tended to show that John F. Costello was tried and convicted before the Superior Court for forgery, the...