Commonwealth v. Dill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The defendants were indicted for adultery, and also for lewd and lascivious cohabitation, and were found guilty of the latter offence. Pub. Sts. c. 207, § 6. The case is here on exceptions. The first question is whether there was any evidence warranting a conviction of the defendant Dill. There was evidence tending to show the following facts. The defendant Higgins was engaged by Dill as his housekeeper, and had a son born after she had been with him in Welifleet about a year. Dill continued to keep her, and she had another child, born at Boston, during a temporary absence, in a house taken…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. WatermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Commonwealth v. StevensonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Commonwealth v. NorcrossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by8 opinions
- Derinza's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Commonwealth v. HaydenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Finer v. SteuerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Budd v. MorganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Watson v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.