Case Name: Commonwealth versus Perkins
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1823-03
Citations: 1 Pick. 388
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth versus Perkins.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
Commonwealth versus Perkins.
1. H. P. was indicted by the name of T. P. junior. Held a misnomer, because the Christian name was wrong.
The defendant, being indicted by the name of Thoma? Perkins, junior, for a nuisance, under the statute against gaming, pleaded in abatement., at April term 1822 of the Municipal Court, that his name was Thomas Hopkins Perkins. The county attorney demurred generally, and there was a judgment of respondías ouster, a trial upon the general issue, and an appeal to this Court.
Morton, Attorney-General,
cited Franklin v. Talmadge, 5 Johns. Rep. 84 ; Kincaid v. Howe, 10 Mass. Rep. 205; The King v. Warren, 1 Keb. 885 ; Vin. Abr. Misnomer, (C. 6), 5, 6.
S. D. Parker, for the defendant,
cited Vin. Abr. Misnomer, (C. 6); Weleker v. Le Pelletier, 1 Campb. 479 ; Jones v. Macquillin, 5 D. & E. 195 ; 1 Chit. Cr. L. 202 ; Walden v. Holman, 6 Mod. 115 ; Cambridge University v. Abp. York, 10 Mod. 208.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It is said, on behalf of the Commonwealth, that junior is no part of the name. This is true, but another objection to the indictment is, that the defendant is called Thomas instead of Thomas Hopkins. In 5 D. & E. 195, a person was sued by the Christian name, James Richard, instead of Richard James, and it was held a misnomer on account of the transposition. The indictment must give the defendant his right Christian name.
Defendant discharged.
See Dekentland, v. Somers, 2 Root, 437.
Where C. J. H. was enrolled in a company of militia by the name of C. H.. it was held, that he was not duly enrolled. Commonwealth v. Hall, 3 Pick. 862 In Keene v. Meade, 3 Peters's S. C. R. 7, Thompson J. said, that "it may well be questioned whether the middle letter of a name forms any part of the Christian name of a party." See Wood v. Fletcher, 3 N. Hamp. R. 61; .Arbouin v. Willoughby, 1 Marsh. 447 ; Hutchins v. Gilbie, 2 Chitty's R. 335