Simon v. Justices & Special Justices of Municipal Court of City of Boston

Decision Date18 May 1916
PartiesSIMON v. JUSTICES AND SPECIAL JUSTICES OF MUNICIPAL COURT OF CITY OF BOSTON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Petition for writ of prohibition by Isaac Simon against the Justices and Special Justices of the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. On report. Petition dismissed.

F. Galloupe Woodbury, of Boston, for petitioner.

Walter F. Frederick, of Boston, for respondents.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition. The pertinent facts are that the petitioner, a judgment debtor, was being examined under R. L. c. 168, § 20, as amended by St. 1906, c. 203, § 1, for the relief of poor debtors. This examination without objection was begun and had proceeded for a time in a room in the courthouse adjoining or near that in which the judge was engaged in other work, each question and answer being written out in long hand. Thereupon, in order to facilitate the examination and at the suggestion of counsel for the judgment creditor, the judge ordered that a stenographer provided by such counsel take a complete record of the questions and answers and prepare one typewritten transcript thereof for each counsel, and after it had been fully examined by the parties, such changes might be made as would make the interrogatories and answers conform to the truth, and that then the same should be read to the court in the presence of the debtor and signed and sworn to by him.

It is not argued that this procedure was not in conformity to the statute. By its express terms the examination ‘may be in the presence of the magistrate or otherwise as he shall order.’

[3][4][5] The contention is that the statute is unconstitutional as contravening articles 1, 10, 11, and 30 of the Declaration of Rights, which in general guarantee to every individual equality before the law, the protection of life, liberty and property according to standing laws, recourse to law for injuries to person, property and character, and the strict separation of government into the three departments of executive, legislative and judicial.

The instant statute offends against none of these constitutional rights.

The examination of an applicant for the oath for the relief of poor debtors is not a common-law right. It is wholly the creature of statute, which, so far as concerns the present method, has come into existence since the adoption of the Constitution. Stockwell v. Silloway, 100 Mass. 287, 296. See Com. v. Badlam, 9 Pick. 362. It is entirely for the benefit of the debtor. As to him it is a concession of grace and not the regulation of a right. The procedure within the boundaries set for the protection of fundamental rights by the Constitution is entirely within the power of the general court. Affidavits and depositions long have been a familiar method of bringing facts before a court. Parker v. Nickerson, 137 Mass. 487. It is only when the subject is held to answer for a crime that h...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Little v. Mathews
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 28, 1944
    ... ... EDWARD MATHEWS. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.December 28, 1944 ... Municipal Court has pleaded not guilty to charges of ... PROCESS in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. Charges ... of fraud were tried ... Kerrigan's Case, ... 158 Mass. 220. Simon v. Justices of the Municipal Court ... of the ... ...
  • Little v. Mathews
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 28, 1944
    ...97 Mass. 524, 530; Frost's Case, 127 Mass. 550, 554; Kerrigan's Case, 158 Mass. 220, 33 N.E. 390;Simon v. Justices of the Municipal Court of the City of Boston, 224 Mass. 122, 112 N.E. 608;B. F. Huntley Furniture Co. v. Parker, 291 Mass. 339, 340, 196 N.E. 925. At the same time, decrees in ......
  • B. F. Huntley Furniture Co. v. Parker
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1935
    ... ... v. PARKER et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.June 26, 1935 ...           H ... Singer, of Boston, for petitioner ...           RUGG, ... respondents, the judge and clerk of the Municipal ... Court of Brookline, of an application by a ... 173 Mass. 498, 53 N.E. 998; Simon v. Justices of ... Municipal Court, 224 Mass ... the Municipal Court of the City of Boston made in 1916. The ... Judicature ... ...
  • In re Opinion of the Justices
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1925
    ...Even imprisonment for debt does not violate constitutional guarantees. Commonwealth v. Badlam, 9 Pick. 362;Simon v. Justices of Municipal Court, 224 Mass. 122, 112 N. E. 608. The answer to each of the questions in this order is, Yes. ARTHUR P. RUGG. HENRY K. BRALEY. JOHN C. CROSBY. EDWARD P......
  • 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