Commonwealth v. Haskins
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment charging the defendants in one count with the larceny of a cow, and in the other with receiving the same cow, knowing the same to have been stolen. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., there was evidence tending to show that a cow was stolen, and that, soon after the larceny, the cow was in possession of the defendants.
Read the full summary
Indictment charging the defendants in one count with the larceny of a cow, and in the other with receiving the same cow, knowing the same to have been stolen. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., there was evidence tending to show that a cow was stolen, and that, soon after the larceny, the cow was in possession of the defendants. The government went to the jury upon both counts, and the judge gave instructions to the jury upon the law with reference to the offences charged in both counts, to which no objection or exception was taken, and especially instructed the jury that…
1Opinion of the CourtLobd, J.
There is in this case no question affecting the power of the district attorney to enter a nolle prosequi; such an entry affects only the proceedings subsequent to it, but the record of what is antecedent to it remains.
By that record it appears that there had been the larceny of a cow, and but one larceny of that cow. The defendants were charged in one count of the indictment with such larceny, and in the second count with having received her knowing her to have been thus stolen. It is certain that the defendants could not be guilty upon both counts, because in law the guilty receiver of…
2Cited by59 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SherryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Kuklis v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- Commonwealth v. ScottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1969
- Heinze v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1945
- Kuck v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.