Commonwealth v. Lane
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for subornation of perjury. In the Superior Court, the defendant moved to quash the indictment for the following reasons: “ 1. Because no crime or offence is fully, plainly, substantially, and formally described or set out therein. 2. Because it sets out no crime or offence against the laws of the land or the statutes of this Commonwealth. 3. Because it is insufficient and bad in law on the face of it. 4. Because it is vague, indefinite, uncertain, and ambiguous.…
Read the full summary
Indictment for subornation of perjury. In the Superior Court, the defendant moved to quash the indictment for the following reasons: “ 1. Because no crime or offence is fully, plainly, substantially, and formally described or set out therein. 2. Because it sets out no crime or offence against the laws of the land or the statutes of this Commonwealth. 3. Because it is insufficient and bad in law on the face of it. 4. Because it is vague, indefinite, uncertain, and ambiguous. 5. Because no indictment has been found in the case in which the alleged perjury was committed.” This motion was…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The indictment is for subornation of perjury, and charges that the defendant “ did unlawfully and wickedly solicit . . , Daniel F. Keane . . . falsely to depose, say, and give evidence upon his oath,” etc. The defendant contends that the indictment is bad, because it does not charge that he “ corruptly ” did the acts set forth. But, without now determining *463whether this objection would have been good if properly taken, it is not open on the motion to quash, because, if the indictment is defective, the defect is merely formal and should have been assigned specifically, under the rule laid down…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SchaffnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Commonwealth v. MurrayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Commonwealth v. JenksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. DonovanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898