Commonwealth v. Peopcik
| Decision Date | 25 February 1925 |
| Citation | 251 Mass. 369,146 N.E. 661 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. PEOPCIK. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Criminal Court, Essex County; W. H. Whiting, Judge.
Frank Peopcik was convicted of receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.
W. G. Clark, Dist. Atty., of Gloucester, and F. E. Raymond, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Ipswich, for the Commonwealth.
M. J. Reardon, of Salem, for defendant.
The defendant was tried on a complaint for receiving goods, knowing they had been stolen from the owner, the Ipswich Mills. At the trial evidence was introduced that on November 17, 1922, 87 pairs of stockings were found at the defendant's home in Ipswich. Some of these were in a bureau drawer, and others were in a box on the floor of the closet in the same room with the bureau. The superintendent of the Ipswich Mills and an overseer in its finishing room identified them as stockings made at the Ipswich Mills. They identified certain pairs of undyed stockings, and also stockings ‘with a silk leg and cotton top, which * * * had not been dyed at the Ipswich Mills,’ and certain ‘unfinished stockings which had been dyed and had not gone through the finishing room.’ These stockings had not been worn. The superintendent and overseer testified that the stockings identified by them were never allowed ‘to leave the mills'; that the adult stockings found in the defendant's possession were without a mark size and the trade-mark of the Ipswich Mills, which were placed on stockings, ‘except the brief period just before Christmas, when the rush was on.’
The defendant and his wife had been employed by the Ipswich Mills for a long period prior to the finding of the stockings. The defendant stated that ‘some of the stockings were purchased by him and his wife from the Ipswich Mills.’ The records of the mill show that the defendant or his wife purchased from the Ipswich Mills in December, 1921, 6 pairs of ladies' stockings, 24 pairs of children's stockings, and in February and April, 1922, 12 pairs of men's stockings, 3 pairs of children's and 6 pairs of ladies' stockings. The bill of exceptions recites that there was no direct testimony that the defendant knew the stockings were stolen, that they were unfinished, or that he knew of the custom of the Ipswich Mills not to sell stockings unfinished or ‘in the condition as above set forth.’ There was testimony that the defendant purchased the stockings from a peddler. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved that a verdict of not guilty be ordered. The motion was denied and the defendant excepted. A verdict of guilty was returned.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Porter
...defendant is charged not with theft, but with a crime inconsistent with theft, namely, receiving stolen goods. Commonwealth v. Peopcik, 251 Mass. 369, 371, 146 N.E. 661 (1925). Commonwealth v. Kelley, 333 Mass. at 195, 129 N.E.2d 900. Commonwealth v. Ryan, 355 Mass. 768, 773, 247 N.E.2d 564......
-
Com. v. Sandler
...the owner of his rightful use of it." Commonwealth v. Kronick, 196 Mass. 286, 288, 82 N.E. 39, 40 (1907). Commonwealth v. Peopcik, 251 Mass. 369, 371, 146 N.E. 661 (1925). Commonwealth v. Boris, 317 Mass. 309, 313, 58 N.E.2d 8 (1944). Commonwealth v. Matheson, 328 Mass. 371, 373, 103 N.E.2d......
-
Com. v. Johnson
...of the recently stolen vehicle, the jury could infer the defendant's knowledge that it was stolen. See Commonwealth v. Peopcik, 251 Mass. 369, 371, 146 N.E. 661 (1925); Commonwealth v. Kelley, 333 Mass. 191, 193-194, 129 N.E.2d 900 (1955); Commonwealth v. Obshatkin, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 3, 307......
-
Commonwealth v. Parrotta
...4 N.E.2d 246. In any event on the merits no error was shown. See Commonwealth v. Kronick, 196 Mass. 286, 82 N.E. 39;Commonwealth v. Peopcik, 251 Mass. 369, 146 N.E. 661;Commonwealth v. Grossman, 261 Mass. 68, 158 N.E. 338. Exceptions overruled. 1. See G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 277, §§ 57, 59; c. 265......