Commonwealth v. Stevens
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The prisoner was indicted for altering an order drawn by one Sturtevant on one Rufus Page in favor of Stevens, the original order being for five dollars, and altered to fifteen dollars. There was a second count for uttering and publishing the order thus altered; but the attorney-general had entered a nolle prosequi to this last count during the trial.
Read the full summary
The prisoner was indicted for altering an order drawn by one Sturtevant on one Rufus Page in favor of Stevens, the original order being for five dollars, and altered to fifteen dollars. There was a second count for uttering and publishing the order thus altered; but the attorney-general had entered a nolle prosequi to this last count during the trial. Trial was had at this term, before Sewall, J. The evidence in support of the first count in the indictment was1 the testimony of Sturtevant, who swore that he gave the prisoner the order for five dollars, and that it had been altered. Jonathan…
1Per curiam
It is true that the prisoner’s confession must be taken together, and it must also be taken as true. From that confession it must be considered as proved, that he was present and assenting; and, since he alone was to derive benefit from the act, the jury were justified in inferring that he procured it to be done. The evidence was quite sufficient to satisfy the jury that the prisoner committed the crime, either with his own hand, or by the hand of another; and there is no ground for setting aside their verdict.
The motion for a new trial was overruled.
ADDITIONAL NOTE.
[See Cayford’s case, 7…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FosterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- People v. HoaglinMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Peel v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1895
- Commonwealth v. HallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903