Commonwealth v. O'Baldwin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for prizefighting, charging that Edward O’Baldwin and Joseph Wormald, “ by and in pursuance of a previous appointment and arrangement made by and between them to meet and engage in a fight with each other, did meet and engage in a fight with each other, against the peace,” &c.
Read the full summary
Indictment for prizefighting, charging that Edward O’Baldwin and Joseph Wormald, “ by and in pursuance of a previous appointment and arrangement made by and between them to meet and engage in a fight with each other, did meet and engage in a fight with each other, against the peace,” &c. At the trial of O’Baldwin, in the superior court, before Brigham, C. J., the jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the judge allowed a bill of exceptions of which the following is the material part: “ In the argument, the defendant’s counsel contended that there had been no evidence regarding Joseph Wormald;…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The defendant has no ground of exception to the judge’s instructions or refusals to instruct. Evidence that the person proved to have participated with the defendant was called “Wormald” or “Jo” was sufficient in law to warrant the jury in finding that his name was Joseph Wormald. The question of the amount and weight of the evidence on that point was rightly submitted to the jury. No question appears to have been made at the trial as to the degree to which the jury must be satisfied of the facts which the Commonwealth was bound to prove. Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Porter v. ButterfieldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Commonwealth v. TaberMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- State v. WhiteneckIndiana Supreme Court · 1911