Commonwealth v. Rowe
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two complaints for larceny. At the trial in the superior court in Suffolk, before Seudder, J., on appeal from the municipal court of Boston, the defendant was found guilty, and alleged exceptions, which are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGray, J.
The defendant was charged in separate complaints with larceny of certain napkins from the shop of Sanford & Churchill, and of other dry goods from the shop of Jordan, Marsh & Company. The Commonwealth relied on the defendant’s possession, at the time of her arrest, of the goods stolen, as proof that she stole them.
The evidence introduced by the defendant, without objection, tended to show that she went with another woman into the two shops successively; that in the second shop the other woman requested the defendant to hold her shawl, and she took it without knowing that it contained…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. GoldstrohmWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1919
- Commonwealth v. SargentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- State v. WhiteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1905