Commonwealth v. Stone
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. In the superior court, before the jury were empanelled, Wilkinson, J,, overruled a motion of the defendant to quash the indictment for the reason that it was not signed, indorsed or countersigned by the district attorney. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
The usual and proper practice is, that the prosecuting officer shall countersign indictments; but there is nothing in the statutes requiring it, and we do not think it is indispensable to the validity of an indictment. It has been so held in New Hampshire. State v. Farrar, 41 N. H. 53. The bill is to be found by the grand jury, and therefore the signature of ihe foreman is necessary. Webster's case, 5 Greenl. 432. State v. Squire, 10 N. H. 558. State v. Freeman, 13 N. H. 488. But the prosecuting attorney acts independently of the grand jury and not as a part of that body. Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by5 opinions
- In Re LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- People v. StrauchIllinois Supreme Court · 1910
- People v. StrauchAppellate Court of Illinois · 1910
- Cross v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896
- State ex rel. Swietkoski v. SwensonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1950