Commonwealth v. M'Culloch
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The defendant was indicted, at the last May term of this Court, at Greenfield, in the county of Franklin, as a common barrator.
Read the full summary
The defendant was indicted, at the last May term of this Court, at Greenfield, in the county of Franklin, as a common barrator. On the trial before Putnam, J.,. it appeared that one Ross was indebted to one Carpenter on three several promissory notes, two of them being for 15 dollars each, and the third for 9 dollars 50 cents; which were given in so small sums that Ross might be sued upon them before a justice of the peace, if he neglected to make payment when Carpenter should require it. The defendant purchased these notes of Carpenter, paying the amount in cash; and there was some evidence…
1Per curiam
Without deciding at this time that three acts of *212barratry, absolutely and in all cases, constitute the perpetrator of them a common barrator, — on which point the books seem less explicit than we had thought, — we think the evidence reported does not show that three such acts have been committed by the defendant. The evidence shows, without question, an indictable offence; but legal distinctions must be maintained. The commencing of three suits, where one would have served every justifiable purpose, might have been evidence of three acts of barratry, had he given particular directions…
2Cited by8 opinions
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Berlin v. NathanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978
- State of Missouri v. NoellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
- Vitaphone Corporation v. Hutchinson Amusement Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1939
- State v. O'ConnerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1862
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.