Commonwealth v. Rowe

Decided January 30, 1886

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1886-01-30

<p>A regulation of the board of aldermen of a city provided that no person having the care or ordering of a vehicle should suffer the same to stop in a street more than twenty minutes. A complaint alleged that the defendant, on a day named, “ was the person then and there having the care and ordering of a certain vehicle, to wit, a cab, and did then and there, without having any license, authority, or appointment, according to law, so to do, suffer said vehicle to stop in a certain public street situate within said city, and called C. Street, for a longer time than twenty minutes.” Held, that the complaint was sufficient.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1977

2 state decisions

Relies on Commonwealth v. Fenton · Commonwealth v. Barrett

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-01-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court.

¶1The motion to quash was rightly overruled. The regulation of the board of aldermen, under which the complaint is brought, provides that no person “ having the care or ordering of a vehicle shall suffer the same to stop in a street for more than twenty minutes.” The obvious meaning of the regulation is that no vehicle shall be allowed to make a continuous stop of more than twenty minutes. The complaint substantially follows the regulation, and, by its natural and obvious construction, charges a continuous stopping for a longer time than twenty minutes, and is sufficient. Commonwealth v. Barrett, 108 Mass. 302. Commonwealth v. Fenton, 139 Mass. 195.

¶2 Exceptions overruled.