Commonwealth v. Connolly
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment under the St. of 1866, c. 262, § 5, charging that the defendant at Boston on March 24,1867, “ did falsely assume and pretend to be ” “ a deputy of the constable of the Commonwealth,” “ and did then and there unlawfully take upon himself to act as such officer, by declaring himself to one Bridget Durand to be such officer, and by then and there searching in the dwelling-house of one Bartley Durand, the husband of the said Bridget, for intoxicating liquors kept for…
Read the full summary
Indictment under the St. of 1866, c. 262, § 5, charging that the defendant at Boston on March 24,1867, “ did falsely assume and pretend to be ” “ a deputy of the constable of the Commonwealth,” “ and did then and there unlawfully take upon himself to act as such officer, by declaring himself to one Bridget Durand to be such officer, and by then and there searching in the dwelling-house of one Bartley Durand, the husband of the said Bridget, for intoxicating liquors kept for sale contrary to law.” At the trial in the superior court, before Putnam, J., Bridget Durand testified that on the day…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, J.
It was for the jury to interpret the language and conduct of the defendant, and we cannot see that the evidence was insufficient in law to warrant a verdict against him.
The instructions given them were correct and sufficiently guarded. Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Frost v. American Surety Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914