Commonwealth v. Bouvier
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for perjury, the material portions of which are as follows: “ That heretofore and at the time of the committing of the offence hereinafter mentioned, to wit, on the twenty-first day of February in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and ninety-five, in the First District Court of Southern Worcester liolden at Webster in said county of Worcester before Andrew J. Bartholomew, then and there being the justice of said First District Court of Southern Worcester, a…
Read the full summary
Indictment for perjury, the material portions of which are as follows: “ That heretofore and at the time of the committing of the offence hereinafter mentioned, to wit, on the twenty-first day of February in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and ninety-five, in the First District Court of Southern Worcester liolden at Webster in said county of Worcester before Andrew J. Bartholomew, then and there being the justice of said First District Court of Southern Worcester, a certain complaint in which said complaint it was charged that George H. Dumas on the first day of July in the year…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
1. The act charged in the complaint against Dumas was a crime under the laws of this Commonwealth, and the indictment alleges that this complaint was tried in the First District Court of Southern Worcester, before the justice of that court. The indictment clearly alleges that the perjury was committed in the trial of a crime; and it was not necessary to allege that the court was then held for criminal business. Pub. Sts. c. 205, § 5, Commonwealth v. Hatfield, 107 Mass. 227, 230.
2. The indictment sets forth that the defendant swore that he did not sign said complaint, and that the name, which…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. HatfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- Paul v. Salt Lake City R.Utah Supreme Court · 1908
- Commonwealth v. WrightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896