Noyes v. Manning
| Decision Date | 23 June 1894 |
| Citation | 162 Mass. 14,37 N.E. 768 |
| Parties | NOYES v. MANNING. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
P.J. Casey, for appellant.
J.J Feeley, for appellee.
This case comes here upon appeal from an order of the superior court overruling a motion in arrest of judgment, which it is agreed was filed when the defendant was brought up for sentence after the decision of this court in 159 Mass. 446 34 N.E. 682. The principal question which is discussed by the defendant in his brief relates to the authority of the assistant clerks of the municipal court of the city of Boston to issue executions and sign orders and certificates made by that court. It is enough to say of this question that it is not included in the motion in arrest, and cannot be raised for the first time at the argument in this court. The appeal only brings up as matter of law the question of the correctness of the ruling as made upon the motion that was filed. The substance of the motion in arrest is that the charge of fraud, on which the defendant was tried and found guilty, does not set out the fraud with such clearness and formality as the law requires, but is vague, indefinite, and insufficient in regard to the nature of the contract, the parties, and other particulars necessary, it is alleged, to inform the defendant what he is to meet. The charge on which the defendant was arrested was the fifth contained in section 17, c. 162, Pub.St., and was made as follows: "And now comes the creditor in the above-entitled action, saying that the action [upon which execution in said case was issued, and the said debtor arrested] was founded on contract; that the debtor contracted the debt with an intention not to pay the same." This was signed and sworn to as required by the statutes. It is to be observed that the substantive part of the charge was in the precise words of the statute. It is assumed in Chamberlain v. Hoogs, 1 Gray, 172, that that is sufficient. Poor-debtor proceedings are in their main features of a civil, and not of a criminal, nature, though if a debtor is found guilty upon a charge of fraud, he may be imprisoned. Everett v. Henderson, 150 Mass. 411, 23 N.E. 318. When the charge does not, by reference to the action or otherwise, furnish the particulars necessary to enable the debtor clearly to understand what he is accused of, the creditor may be required to file specifications; and, if he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little v. Mathews
... ... Mass. 273 ... Morse v. Dayton, 125 Mass. 47 ... Everett v. Henderson, 150 Mass. 411 ... Bradley v ... Burton, 151 Mass. 419. Noyes v. Manning, 162 ... Mass. 14 , 16. Lamagdelaine v. Tremblay, 162 Mass ... 339 , 341. Brown's Case, 173 Mass. 498 , 500 ... Restuccia v. Bonner, ... ...
-
Little v. Mathews
...v. Dayton, 125 Mass. 47;Everett v. Henderson, 150 Mass. 411, 23 N.E. 318;Bradley v. Burton, 151 Mass. 419, 24 N.E. 778;Noyes v. Manning, 162 Mass. 14, 16, 37 N.E. 768;Lamagdelaine v. Tremblay, 162 Mass. 339, 341, 39 N.E. 38; Brown's Case, 173 Mass. 498, 500, 53 N.E. 998;Restuccia v. Bonner,......
-
Radovsky v. Sperling
...where the charge can be made specific by its reference to the action or otherwise, the debtor can be called upon to plead. Noyes v. Manning, 162 Mass. 14, 37 N.E. 768. record of the first court to which the debtor applied does not recite that he had pleaded formally to this charge of fraud,......