In re Marcellino
| Decision Date | 04 April 1930 |
| Citation | 171 N.E. 81,271 Mass. 323 |
| Parties | In re MARCELLINO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Annibal Marcellino was found guilty of an offense, and he petitions to establish a bill of exceptions in such case.
Bill of exceptions established.
D. W. Casey, of Boston, for petitioners.
W. P. Kelley, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
This is a petition to establish exceptions in a criminal case. The petitioner alleges that at his trial upon an indictment he was found guilty by verdict rendered on February 20, 1930; that on February 25, 1930, he filed a bill of exceptions; that between the date of the rendition of the verdict and the date of the filing of his exceptions there intervened February 22, 1930, which is a legal holiday, and Sunday, February 23, 1930; that the trial judge refused to allow the bill of exceptions because not seasonably filed, and dismissed it. It is conceded that these are the facts.
It is provided by G. L. c. 278, § 31, St. 1925, c. 279, § 2, St. 1926, c. 329, § 6, that in a criminal case exceptions shall be filed ‘within three days after the verdict.’ It is provided by G. L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 18, St. 1928, c. 235, that February twenty-second, with other designated days, shall be a legal holiday in this Commonwealth and that ‘the public offices shall be closed on all of said days.’ By G. L. c. 213, § 4 ‘The courts shall always be open in every county and the business thereof * * * may be transacted at any time; but such business shall not * * * be transacted on Sunday or on a legal holiday,’ with exceptions not here material.
It is the general rule that when the time limited by a statute for the performance of any act is less than seven days, Sunday shall not be included in the computation. Cunningham v. Mahan, 112 Mass. 58;Haley v. Young, 134 Mass. 364;Cowley v. McLaughlin, 141 Mass. 181, 4 N. E. 821;Stevenson v. Donnelly, 221 Mass. 161, 108 N. E. 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 932. It is also true that computation of time from a date or from an event or act excludes that day. Tuttle v. Boston, 215 Mass. 57, 60, 102 N. E. 350. See, also, G. L. c. 4, § 9, whereby it is provided that when the last day for the performance of any act falls on Sunday or on a legal holiday, it may be performed on the next succeeding business day unless specifically provided otherwise. The implication of these statutes is that, so far as performance of business connected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweeney v. Morey & Co.
...not included in the computation. Stevenson v. Donnelly, 221 Mass. 161, 163, 108 N. E. 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 932;In re Marcellino, Petitioner, 271 Mass. 323, 324, 171 N. E. 81. Therefore, knowledge of the notice having been received on Saturday, August 2, and the request for a report having ......
-
Dudley v. Sheehan Const. Co.
...holiday. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 4, § 7(18), section 9; c. 214, § 19; Grant v. Pizzano, 264 Mass. 475, 477, 163 N.E. 162;In re Marcellino, petitioner, 271 Mass. 323, 171 N.E. 81. She contends that merely by claiming an appeal on that day she vacated that final decree, and thus destroyed its effect......
-
Muldoon v. West End Chevrolet, Inc.
...be excluded, because the period is less than seven days. Stevenson v. Donnelly, 221 Mass. 161, 163, 108 N.E. 926; In re Marcellino, 271 Mass. 323, 324-325, 171 N.E. 81; Daley v. Judge of District Court of Western Hampden, 304 Mass. 86, 94, 23 N.E.2d 1. Cf. Iannelle v. Fire Com'r of Boston, ......
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...with the courts is concerned, legal holidays under the statutes stand on the same footing as does the Lord's Day. In re Marcellino, petitioner, 271 Mass. 323, 171 N. E. 81. It was said in the Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655 at page 679,49 S. Ct. 463, 466, 73 L. Ed. 894, 64 A. L. R. 1434, in......