Case ID: mass_170/html/0571-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Field, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth vs. George Hagan.
    Suffolk.
    March 28, 1898.
    March 30, 1898.
    Present: Field, C. J., Allen, Holmes, Knowlton, & Lathrop, JJ.
    
      Larceny — Evidence.
    
    At the trial of an indictment for breaking and entering a shop with intent to commit larceny and for committing larceny therein, evidence that the owner of the shop found the stick broken with which one part of the door had been fastened is competent, because it tends to show that the shop had been broken into by somebody.
    At the trial of an indictment for breaking and entering a shop with intent to commit larceny and for committing larceny therein, the district attorney, after putting questions relating to the defendant and in connection therewith, asked a witness, “What was the defendant doing when you got off the carl” The question was objected to in form and substance. Held, that, while it did not appear what the answer was, and therefore the court did not know that it was prejudicial to the defendant, yet the question in the connection in which it was put apparently related to the conduct of the defendant, and therefore it could not be said that the court erred in allowing it to be put.
    Indictment, charging the defendant with breaking and entering the shop of Vassili Varrdopolo, with intent to commit larceny and with committing larceny therein.
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Fessenden, J., there was evidence tending to show that the outside door of the shop was in two parts, the first of which was fastened by a stick of wood on the inside, and the other by being locked into the post; that Varrdopolo left the shop at about three o’clock on the afternoon of the day named in the indictment, locking the door when he left; that he returned in about fifteen minutes and found that the door had been broken open; that he could not identify the defendant as being concerned in the breaking and entering; and that when he returned he noticed that the stick was partially broken off in the door.
    The District Attorney asked Varrdopolo whether he found the stick broken when he came back. The defendant objected to the question, on the ground “ that it tended to show, and did show, proof of a wholly different offence from that for which the defendant was on trial.” The judge allowed the question to be put, and the witness answered that he did find the stick broken. The defendant excepted, but made no objection to the form of the question or answer.
    The District Attorney, after putting questions relating to the defendant and in connection therewith, asked a witness, “ What was Hagan doing when you got off the car ? ” This question was objected to in form and substance. The judge allowed the question to be put, and the defendant excepted.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      R. A. Duggan, for the defendant.
    
      J. D. McLaughlin, Second Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
   Field, C. J.

The evidence was competent that Varrdopolo found the stick broken with which one part of the door of the shop had been fastened, because this evidence tended to show that the shop had been broken into by somebody. We do not know what the answer was to the second question objected to, and therefore we do not know that the answer was prejudicial to the defendant, but the question in the connection in which it was put apparently related to the conduct of the defendant, and we cannot say that the court erred in allowing it to be put.

Exceptions overruled.