Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

108 Mass. 488

Commonwealth v. Dorus

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 15, 1871

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1871-11-15

Indictment on the Gen. Sts. c. 160, § 28, with two counts: the first averring that the defendant at Boston on February 1, 1870, verbally, wilfully and maliciously threatened Nathaniel F. Emerson to accuse him of committing “ the crime of fornication and adultery,” with intent then and there “by such threat” to extort money, to wit, the sum of $1000, from him, but not setting forth the words of the threat or stating their substance; the second in like terms, save that the…

Cited in Abbott (1879)’s definition of “Seduce” · Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Seduce”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1982

1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

30187118801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Colt, J.

¶1Upon the defendant’s motion, the first count in the indictment was quashed. It is objected to the second count, that the threat is not set out according to its tenor, because the language used does not import a threat to accuse of a crime under *492Gen. Sts. c. 160, § 28, but assumes a state of facts upon which an accusation had been already made, and amounts to an offer to compound the offence for money; and further, that the word *' seduced ” does not imply a criminal offence accomplished. But this is not the only, or most natural, interpretation of the words used; and the jury were justified in finding, upon evidence which supported this count, that the defendant, by the words used, committed the offence charged.

¶2The verdict however must be set aside. The jury were permitted to separate without - returning a verdict into court, and without sealing it up according to the order of the court.

¶3Exceptions sustained.

/108/mass/488 · .json · Public domain