Commonwealth v. Moore

Citation143 Mass. 136,9 N.E. 25
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. MOORE.
Decision Date02 December 1886
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

143 Mass. 136
9 N.E. 25

COMMONWEALTH
v.
MOORE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

December 2, 1886.


Complaint for maintaining a liquor nuisance. At the trial in the superior court, before STAPLES, J., before the impaneling of the jury, the defendant objected to one Abram I. Eddy, one of the jurors, as incompetent to sit upon said case. It appeared that said Eddy was a member of the law and order league of New Bedford, where the offense was alleged to have been committed; that said league was a voluntary association, formed for the enforcement of the laws of New Bedford against the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, and the prosecution of liquor sellers; that the complainant, Jules Giguel, and one Partridge were agents of and employed by said league to carry out the purposes aforesaid, and were furnished by said league with money to pay expenses in carrying on said work, and were paid for their services. The court overruled the objection, held the juror competent, and he was impaneled. Upon evidence which is not material to the decision, a verdict of guilty was returned, and the defendant alleged exceptions.


[143 Mass. 136]E.L. Barney, for defendant.

The juror Eddy was not a disinterested juror, and ought not to have been allowed to sit upon the jury. He was not so disinterested in the issues of the case as to be impartial. He was not “free from all legal exceptions.” Pub.St. c. 170, § 6; Id. § 35.

[9 N.E. 26]

E.J. Sherman, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.


The rulings of the court were correct. Abram I. Eddy was clearly competent to serve as a juror. Com. v. O'Neil, 6 Gray, 343. The fact that the witness was paid to procure evidence to convict the defendant would not affect his competency, but would his credibility. Com. v. Mason, 135 Mass. 555;Com. v. Brown, 121 Mass. 82;Com. v. Trainor, 123 Mass. 414; Pub.St. c. 153, § 5.

GARDNER, J.

Jurors, in this commonwealth, are required to be persons of good moral character, of sound judgment, and free from all legal exception. Pub.St. c. 170, § 6. Upon motion of either party in a suit, the court is required to examine the person called as a juror therein, to know whether he is related to either party, or has any interest in the cause, or has expressed or formed an opinion, or is sensible of any bias or prejudice therein. After the examination of the juror, as above [143 Mass. 137]provided, the party objecting may introduce any other competent evidence in support of the objection, subject to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT