Commonwealth v. Dean
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment, on the Gen. Sts. e. 161, § 54,* alleging that the defendant, having in his hands a written instrument, in form a promissory note, did “ designedly, knowingly, wilfully and maliciously, falsely pretend ” to Marshall Sears, that the instrument was a form of a receipt in due and proper form for Sears to sign for goods delivered to him, and did “ designedly, knowingly, wilfully and falsely read said written instrument to ” Sears in the form of and as a receipt for…
Read the full summary
Indictment, on the Gen. Sts. e. 161, § 54,* alleging that the defendant, having in his hands a written instrument, in form a promissory note, did “ designedly, knowingly, wilfully and maliciously, falsely pretend ” to Marshall Sears, that the instrument was a form of a receipt in due and proper form for Sears to sign for goods delivered to him, and did “ designedly, knowingly, wilfully and falsely read said written instrument to ” Sears in the form of and as a receipt for said goods, and did" “ designedly, knowingly, wilfully and falsely declare and say to ” Sears, that it was only a due form…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The indictment does not charge any offence with the precision requisite in criminal pleadings. There is no sufficient allegation that the defendant obtained the signature of Sears to the note with an intent to defraud. The intent to defraud is an essential element of the crime intended to be charged, and must be distinctly averred by a proper affirmative allegation, and not by way of inference or argument merely. Commonwealth v. Lannan, 1 Allen, 590.
The concluding clause that “ so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say and present that said Dean ” “ in the manner aforesaid,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DunleayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- State v. LovanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Coblentz v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1911