Commonwealth v. Barhight

Decided October 15, 1857

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1857-10-15

Complaint for larceny, signed by the complainant in the blank space below the description of the goods stolen, and above the charge of larceny; and certified by the clerk of the police court of Lowell to have been received and sworn to before that court. The defendant, after conviction in the court of common pleas, moved in arrest of judgment, because the complaint was not “ subscribed by the complainant,” as required by the Rev. Sts. c. 135, § 2.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1907

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Shaw, C. J.

¶1The magistrate is required to reduce the complaint to writing, and “ cause the same to be subscribed by the complainant.” Rev. Sts. c. 135, § 2. It is not certain that this complaint was reduced to writing before it was sworn to. It cannot be ascertained that this signature was made for the purpose of authenticating the whole complaint. The cases cited, relating to the attestation of wills and the signing of memoranda under the statute of frauds, do not apply. Such looseness and carelessness in instituting criminal proceedings are not to be encouraged. Judgment arrested.