Commonwealth v. Haskell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment charging the defendant with burning, on June 22, 1882, a certain building, owned by one Joseph Cushing, situate in Fitchburg, and used by the defendant as a candy manufactory.
Read the full summary
Indictment charging the defendant with burning, on June 22, 1882, a certain building, owned by one Joseph Cushing, situate in Fitchburg, and used by the defendant as a candy manufactory. Trial in the Superior Court, before Staples, J., whp allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: It appeared in the evidence put in by the government, that the defendant and one York, who was his partner in the manufacture of candy in the building burnt, were in the factory on the night of the fire, about half an hour before the burning; that York had that afternoon taken away to Ayer a load of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Whether any inference could be fairly drawn from the failure of the defendant to produce the testimony of York, his partner, under the circumstances of the case, was for the jury to determine. The court rightly refused to rule, as matter of law, as requested by the defendant, that “ it was the duty of the government, rather than of the defence, to hold him as a witness.” There is no law which required the government, rather than the defendant, to hold or call him as a witness.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. McGaheyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- Dillon v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Robinson v. WoodfordWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1892
- Commonwealth v. GoldsteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Closson v. BlighIndiana Court of Appeals · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.