Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

133 Mass. 394

Commonwealth v. McMahon

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 2, 1882

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1882-10-02

Complaint to a trial justice, by “ Austin W. Thayer,” alleging that the defendant, “ on the twenty-fifth day of May,” 1882, at Ware, unlawfully kept intoxicating liquors, with intent unlawfully to sell the same in this Commonwealth; was dated “this twenty-fifth day of June,” 1882; and was signed by “ Austin W. Kellogg, complainant.” It was sworn to by Austin W. Kellogg; and the jurat was dated “ this twenty-fifth day of May,” 1882.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1894

1 state decisions

Relies on Commonwealth v. Eagan

Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Slavery”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-10-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Morton, C. J.

¶1Neither of the reasons assigned for arresting the judgment can prevail. The complaint is dated by mistake on the twenty-fifth day of June, 1882; but the dates of the jurat and of the warrant show that it was made and sworn to on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1882, thus furnishing internal and plenary evidencé that the complaint was duly made before the arrest and trial, and that the date of the complaint was a mere clerical error, which could not mislead the defendant. Donahoe v. Shed, 8 Met. 326.

¶2The mistake in describing the complainant in the body of the complaint as “ Austin W. Thayer ” was also clearly a clerical one. The signature to the complaint, the jurat and the warrant show that the complainant was Austin W. Kellogg. Such a clerical error, which cannot mislead or prejudice the defendant, furnishes no reason for arresting the judgment against him. Commonwealth v. Eagan, 103 Mass. 71. Commonwealth v. Randall, 4 Gray, 36. Judgment affirmed.

/133/mass/394 · .json · Public domain