Commonwealth v. Murray
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment on the Pub. Sts. c. 205, § 9, for corruptly bribing a judicial officer. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Barker, J., the jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
The defendant filed two motions to quash the indictment; the first, for the reason “that no offence is fully, plainly and formally set up in said indictment; ” the second, for the reason “ that no statute offence is set forth therein,” and “ that all the facts which constitute the offence intended to be punished by the Legislature under the are not properly alleged and set forth.” We are not disposed to hold that either of these motions to quash complies with the statute, which requires that, when such motions are made on account of formal defects apparent on the face of the indictment, they…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxicating LiquorsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. DurnamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Commonwealth v. HayesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Commonwealth v. AlbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Minter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Commonwealth v. SchaffnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.