Case ID: mass_105/html/0469-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chapman, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth vs. Charles Stone.
    The signature of the district attorney is not essential to the validity of an indictment.
    Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. In the superior court, before the jury were empanelled, Wilkinson, J,, overruled a motion of the defendant to quash the indictment for the reason that it was not signed, indorsed or countersigned by the district attorney. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      W. D. Worth end, for the defendant.
    
      C. Allen, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   Chapman, C. J.

The usual and proper practice is, that the prosecuting officer shall countersign indictments; but there is nothing in the statutes requiring it, and we do not think it is indispensable to the validity of an indictment. It has been so held in New Hampshire. State v. Farrar, 41 N. H. 53. The bill is to be found by the grand jury, and therefore the signature of ihe foreman is necessary. Webster's case, 5 Greenl. 432. State v. Squire, 10 N. H. 558. State v. Freeman, 13 N. H. 488. But the prosecuting attorney acts independently of the grand jury and not as a part of that body. Exceptions overruled.