Commonwealth v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 26 January 1883 |
| Citation | 134 Mass. 189 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Ann Morrison |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Plymouth. Complaint alleging that the defendant, on June 5 1881, and on divers other days and times between that day and October 24, 1881, at Rockland, unlawfully exposed and kept for sale intoxicating liquors. Trial in the Superior Court before Gardner, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
The government introduced evidence of sales of intoxicating liquors by the defendant on several occasions during the time covered by the complaint.
The government also called as witnesses two police officers, who testified that they were present at the trial of this complaint in the District Court; that, after her conviction the court asked the defendant what she had to say as to her sentence on the conviction; and that the defendant answered, "that she had a large family, and had sold liquors to support them, and begged the mercy of the court, because she could not get along without selling liquors."
The defendant offered evidence tending to impeach the evidence of the government as to sales; and also denied that she made the statement in the District Court as testified to.
The judge gave general instructions, which were not objected to; and, in answer to a question by the jury, whether the confession of the defendant, regardless of other testimony, was sufficient to convict, instructed the jury that it was for them to determine what the above statement of the defendant related to, and what was the effect, provided they found that she made it; and that if they should find, upon all the evidence, that it related to the testimony which had been introduced, at the trial before the District Court, against her, and was an admission or confession by her, that, during the time charged in the complaint, she had sold liquors, substantially as testified to at the trial in the District Court, then they would be justified in convicting her; to which no exception was taken.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and, after verdict, the defendant moved for a new trial, assigning, among other reasons, the following:
This motion was overruled; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
J. L. Eldridge, for the defendant.
G. Marston, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
OPINION
The only exception upon which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Dascalakis
...anew the original trial for the detection of errors which might have been raised by exceptions taken at the trial. In Commonwealth v. Morrison, 134 Mass. 189, it was said at page 190: ‘These reasons * * * relate entirely to rulings, or omissions to rule, during the progress of the trial and......
-
Peterson v. Hopson
...not be entertained when based upon alleged errors of law that either were raised or could have been raised at the trial. Commonwealth v. Morrison, 134 Mass. 189, 190;Garrity v. Higgins, 177 Mass. 414, 58 N.E. 1010;Loveland v. Rand, 200 Mass. 142, 144, 85 N.E. 948;Ryan v. Hickey, 240 Mass. 4......
-
Peterson v. Hopson
...... his bill by substituting a new draft was allowed. The. defendants Hopson and Mange were not residents of the. Commonwealth, were not served with process, and did not. appear. The other defendants demurred. On March 30, 1939, an. interlocutory decree was entered by a ... when based upon alleged errors of law that either were raised. or could have been raised at the trial. Commonwealth v. Morrison, 134 Mass. 189 , 190. Garrity v. Higgins, 177 Mass. 414 . Loveland v. Rand, 200. Mass. 142 , 144. Ryan v. Hickey, 240 Mass. 46 . ......
-
Com. v. McLaughlin
...anew the original trial for the detection of errors which might have been raised by exceptions taken at the trial.' Commonwealth v. Morrison, 134 Mass. 189, 190 (1883). That this is still 'the unbroken practice' is beyond question, and a motion for a new trial may not be used as a vehicle t......