Commonwealth v. Swain
| Citation | 35 N.E. 862,160 Mass. 354 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. SWAIN. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1894 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
The complaint, omitting the formal part, is as follows: "That, at the time of the commission of the offense hereinafter set forth, certain rooms on the second story of the building situated, and numbered 'thirty-four,' in Essex street, in said Boston, were occupied by some person who is to said Thomas unknown, with apparatus, books, and other devices, a more particular description of said apparatus, books, and devices being to said Thomas unknown, for the purpose of registering bets and of buying and selling pools upon the result of trials and contests of skill, speed, and endurance of men birds, beasts, and machines, and that Alfred Swain and Charles Daniels, of said Boston, on the thirtieth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, were present in said rooms, and then and there engaged in the business and employment of registering bets and selling pools upon the result of certain trials and contests of speed and endurance of certain beasts, to wit horses, against the peace of said commonwealth, and the form of the statute in such case made and provided."
P.J Casey, for appellant.
M.J. Sughrue, for the Commonwealth.
The complaint follows the language of the statute, and sets forth an offense against the law. St.1885, c. 342; Com. v. Ferry, 146 Mass. 203, 15 N.E. 484; Com. v. Clancy, 154 Mass. 128, 27 N.E. 1001. In Com. v. Sheedy, 159 Mass. 55, 34 N.E. 84, the offense alleged consisted of disposing of a single suit of clothes, and it was held necessary to identify the transaction by stating the name of the person to whom the suit was disposed of, if known. But when, as here, the offense consists in being present in a room, engaged in a certain business, it is not necessary to mention names. See, further, Com. v. Horton, 2 Gray, 69, 70.
We have expressed our opinion upon the merits, but this motion in arrest of judgment appears, by the record, to have been made after default. The case being in the superior court by appeal from the municipal court, nothing remained to be done but to enter judgment, and therefore the motion was not premature. Pub.St. c. 155, § 62; Com. v. Whitney, 108 Mass. 5. But by Pub.St. c. 214, § 27, "no motion in arrest of judgment shall be allowed for a cause existing before verdict,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Bartlett
...of appearance. See Commonwealth v. Whitney, 108 Mass. 5 (1871); Batchelder v. Commonwealth, 109 Mass. 361 (1872); Commonwealth v. Swain, 160 Mass. 354, 35 N.E. 862 (1894) (see record on appeal); Commonwealth v. Drohan, (210 Mass. 445, 97 N.E. 89 (1912))." Commonwealth v. Coughlin, --- Mass.......
-
People v. Devinny
...v. Carlisle, 30 S. D. 475, 139 N. W. 127;Sterne v. State, 20 Ala. 43;Lawson v. State, 20 Ala. 65, 56 Am. Dec. 182;Commonwealth v. Swain, 160 Mass. 354, 35 N. E. 862;Commonwealth v. Coleman, 184 Mass. 198, 68 N. E. 220. [6] In our opinion, however, this indictment does not come within that e......
-
State v. Stickney
...636, 22 Atl. 613; State v. O'Neil, 66 Vt. 356, 29 Atl. 376; Perry v. People, 14 Ill. 496; Territory v. Corbett, 3 Mont. 50; Com. v. Swain, 160 Mass. 354, 35 N. E. 862. Exceptions ...
-
Com. v. Monahan
...Oakes, 151 Mass. 394, 24 N.E. 210; Com. v. Carney, 153 Mass. 444, 27 N.E. 9; Com. v. Melville, 160 Mass. 307, 35 N.E. 863; Com. v. Swain, 160 Mass. 354, 35 N.E. 862; Lamagdelaine v. Tremblay, 162 Mass. 339, 39 N.E. Judgment affirmed. ...