Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

193 Mass. 383

Commonwealth v. Joe

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 1, 1907

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1907-01-01

Complaint, received and sworn to in the Police Court of the City of Brockton on January 30, 1905, against Charlie Joe, otherwise known as Joe Chung, otherwise known as Joe Hay, of. Brockton, under R. L. c. 214, § 5, charging him with'keeping a common gaming house during the three months next before the thirtieth day of January, 1905.

Relies on Commonwealth v. Smith · Commonwealth v. Warren · Commonwealth v. Kerrissey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1907-01-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2018

2 district · 5 state decisions

40190719101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

Sheldon, J.

¶1The only questions now pressed in this ease arise upon the defendant’s exceptions to the refusal of the court at his trial to give certain instructions asked for by him. He has not however argued his eleventh request, that upon all the evidence he must be acquitted. Plainly this instruction could not have been given. Commonwealth v. Warren, 161 Mass. 281.

¶2The exceptions do not purport to set out all the instructions that were given; those that are stated were full, accurate and well adapted to secure the defendant’s rights. They required the Commonwealth to show that the place was kept and controlled by the defendant; that at least some part of it was kept by him and was actually used for some substantial period of time for the purpose of unlawful gaming, and was commonly *387resorted to for this purpose; and all the essential elements of the offence charged in the complaint were stated. In our opinion, all of the requests to which he was entitled were given in substance. Commonwealth v. Kerrissey, 141 Mass. 110. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 184 Mass. 198. Commonwealth v. Smith, 166 Mass. 370. Commonwealth v. Blankinship, 165 Mass. 40. There is nothing in Commonwealth v. Stahl, 7 Allen, 304, or Commonwealth v. Leavitt, 12 Allen, 179, to help the defendant.

¶3Exceptions overruled.

/193/mass/383 · .json · Public domain