¶1Under an indictment at common law, such as this is, for keeping a disorderly house, it is no variance that the defendant kept only a single room. Regina v. Pierson, 1 Salk. 382; S. C. 2 Ld. Raym. 1197. The common law knows no such offence as keeping a “ disorderly tenement.” Commonwealth v. Wise, 110 Mass. 181. The decision in Commonwealth v. McCaughey, 9 Gray, 296, was under a statute which prohibited the keeping of “ all buildings, places or tenements,” used for certain unlawful purposes, and was thereby held to have made a distinction between “ buildings ” and “ tenements.” Gen. Sts. c. 87, § 6. Commonwealth v. Godley, 11 Gray, 454. Commonwealth v. Shattuck, 14 Gray, 23. Exceptions overruled.
118 Mass. 456
Commonwealth v. Bulman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 22, 1875
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1875-09-22
Indictment found and returned at March term 1875, of the Superior Court, averring that Cornelius Bulman, of Greenfield, in the county of Franklin, on October 1,1874, “ at Montague in the county aforesaid, and on divers other days and times between said last mentioned day and the day of finding this indictment, at said Montague, did keep and maintain a certain common, ill-governed and disorderly house there situate, and in the said house, for his own lucre and gain, certain…
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1924
2 state decisions
Relies on Commonwealth v. Wise
Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “House Of Ill-Fame”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1875-09-22
View the full empirical analysis of this case →