Commonwealth v. Parmenter

• Decision Date: 04 November 1876
• Parties: Commonwealth v. David F. Parmenter
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

121 Mass. 354

Commonwealth v. David F. Parmenter

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 4, 1876

Worcester. Indictment, under the Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 54 charging that the defendant, at a time and place named "devising and intending by unlawful ways and means to obtain the money, goods and chattels of Rhoda Corser, and with intent to cheat and defraud said Rhoda Corser, did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, falsely pretend and represent to said Rhoda Corser that a certain promissory note of the tenor following, that is to say '$ 464.00. Worcester, Mass. April 2d, 1873. One year after date, I promise to pay to the order of Rhoda Corser four hundred and sixty-four dollars, with interest payable annually at the rate of twelve per cent., value received. John Coonan,' was a valid and genuine note, and that the signature thereto was genuine, and that said note was secured by a real estate mortgage; and that the said Rhoda Corser, then and there believing said false pretences and representations, so made as aforesaid by said Parmenter, and being deceived thereby was induced, by reason of the false pretences and representations so made as aforesaid, to deliver and loan, and did then and there deliver and loan to said Parmenter, the sum of four hundred and sixty-four dollars lawful money, of the money and property of said Rhoda Corser, and did then and there take and receive from said Parmenter said note in consideration of said sum of money so as aforesaid delivered and loaned; and the said Parmenter did then and there receive and obtain said sum of money of said Rhoda Corser, by means of the false pretences and representations aforesaid, with intent to cheat and defraud said Rhoda Corser of said sum of money. Whereas in truth and in fact, said note was not a valid and genuine note, and the signature thereto was not genuine, and said note was not secured by a real estate mortgage, all of which the said Parmenter then and there well knew. So the jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do say that the said David F. Parmenter, by means of the false pretences aforesaid, on the second day of April, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-three, at Worcester aforesaid, unlawfully, knowingly and designedly did receive and obtain from said Rhoda Corser, said sum of money the property of said Rhoda Corser, with intent to defraud said Rhoda Corser of the same."

In the Superior Court, before the jury were empanelled, the...