Commonwealth v. Flynn

The defendant was tried and found guilty by a jury on an indictment which charged that he “did steal one chow dog of the value of one hundred dollars . . . of the property” of one Belzarine “against the peace of the Commonwealth . . . and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.” The defendant excepted to the ruling by the trial judge that *137the fact that the dog was not licensed was of no consequence and immaterial and to the refusal of the judge to direct a verdict of not guilty. It is not here argued by the defendant that the evidence did not warrant a conviction…