Commonwealth v. Stevenson

Citation127 Mass. 446
PartiesCommonwealth v. James Stevenson
Decision Date08 September 1879
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Argued November 26, 1878

Suffolk. Indictment on the Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 54, in two counts.

The first count charged that the defendant on June 8, 1877, at Boston, "with intent to cheat and defraud one Eliza D Mayo, and with the view and intent to obtain the signature of said Mayo to a certain written instrument and lease hereinafter described, and to induce the said Mayo to lease demise and let then and there, to one T. F. Conlin, under and according to the provisions of said instrument, the dwelling-house belonging to said Mayo, situate and numbered two on Dover Street in said Boston, did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, falsely pretend and represent to said Mayo, that said T. F. Conlin was then and there a liquor-dealer, then doing business as such dealer in Broad Street in said Boston, and that said Conlin was then and there a man worth ten thousand dollars, and that a certain person whom the said Stevenson then and there pointed out and designated to said Mayo was then and there the said T. F. Conlin. And the said Stevenson then and there asked and requested the said Mayo to then and there put and sign the name and signature of her, the said Mayo, to the said written instrument and lease. And the said Mayo, then and there believing the said false pretences and representations, so made as aforesaid by the said Stevenson, and being deceived thereby, was induced, by reason of the false pretences and representations, so made as aforesaid, to put and sign, and did then and there put and sign, the name and signature of her, the said Mayo, to the said written instrument and lease, the false making whereof would be punishable as forgery, and to deliver, and did then and there deliver, to the said person so as aforesaid designated by the said Stevenson to be the said T. F. Conlin, the said written instrument and lease, with the signature of the said Mayo, so as aforesaid obtained and affixed thereto. And the said Stevenson did then and there receive and obtain the said signature of the said Mayo to the said written instrument and lease by means of the false pretences and representations aforesaid, and with intent to cheat and defraud the said Mayo." The count also set forth the lease; negatived the truth of the representations; and concluded in the usual manner.

The second count charged that the defendant, on June 8, 1877, at Boston, "with intent to cheat and defraud, did then and there, unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, falsely pretend and represent to one Eliza D. Mayo that he, said Stevenson, then and there had in his possession a check and order for the payment of money, for a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of thirteen hundred and forty-three dollars; that said check was then and there drawn to the credit of her, said Mayo, by him, said Stevenson; that said Stevenson then intended to immediately pay with the proceeds of said check, for her, said Mayo, certain bills then due, and to be paid from her, said Mayo, to wit" (setting forth the bills); that "said Stevenson then and there asked and requested said Mayo to sign, seal and deliver to him, said Stevenson, among other papers, a certain instrument, to wit, a deed of the tenor following" (setting it forth). And the said Mayo, then and there believing the said false pretences and representations so made as aforesaid by him, the said Stevenson, to be true, and being deceived thereby, was induced, by reason of the false pretences and representations, so made as aforesaid, to sign, seal and deliver, and did then and there sign, seal and deliver, to the said Stevenson, said deed hereinbefore set forth. And the said Stevenson did then and there receive and obtain said signature of the said Mayo to said deed, by means of the false pretences and representations aforesaid, and with intent to cheat and defraud." The indictment then negatived the truth of the representations; and concluded in the usual manner.

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

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Alabama & Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. v. Thornhill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 22 d1 Dezembro d1 1913
    ......Tucker, 74 Miss. 99; Smith v. State, 58 Miss. 873; McInery v. Invin, 90 Ala. 275; Rhea v. State, 100 Ala. 119; Commonwealth v. Churchill, 52 Mass. 538;. Jackson v. Lewis, 13 Johns, 504; State v. Smith, 7 Vt. 141; Spears v. Forrest, 15 Vt. 435; Holland v. Barnes, ...Cr. R. 188; Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1; Pyle v. Percy, 122 Cal. 383;. Kidwell v. State, 63 Md. 384; Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 127 Mass. 446; People v. O'Hare, . 124 Mich. 515; People v. Wilson, 136 Mich. 298;. Kobb v. Union R. Co., 23 R. I. 72; Kennington v. ......
  • Com. v. Binkiewicz
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 9 d5 Junho d5 1961
    ...than parties. Commonwealth v. Schaffner, 146 Mass. 512, 515-516, 16 N.E. 280; Commonwealth v. Churchill, 11 Metc. 538; Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 127 Mass. 446, 450; Commonwealth v. Vandenhecke, 248 Mass. 403, 404-405, 143 N.E. 337. When character is in issue it may be shown (apart from G.L......
  • State v. Wolfner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 4 d6 Fevereiro d6 1928
    ......United States,. 133 F. 341; Addington v. State, 16 Ala.App. 10;. Wilkerson v. State, 140 Ala. 155; Day v. Com., 110 S.W. 417; Com. v. Stevenson, 127. Mass. 446; Peo. v. Miller, 169 N.Y. 336;. Williams v. State, 77 Oh. St. 468; Urban v. Tyszka, 16 Pa. Dist. 625; State v. Bingham, 51. Wash. ......
  • State v. Wolfner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 4 d6 Fevereiro d6 1928
    ...United States, 133 Fed. 341; Addington v. State, 16 Ala. App. 10; Wilkerson v. State, 140 Ala. 155; Day v. Com., 110 S.W. 417; Com. v. Stevenson, 127 Mass. 446; Peo. v. Miller, 169 N.Y. 336; Williams v. State, 77 Oh. St. 468; Urban v. Tyszka, 16 Pa. Dist. 625; State v. Bingham, 51 Wash. 616......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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