Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Charles R. Moody
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1887-01-04
Citations: 143 Mass. 177
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Charles R. Moody.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Charles R. Moody.
Suffolk.
Nov. 22,1886.
Jan. 4, 1887.
Holmes & Gardner, JJ., absent.
A complaint on the St. of 1885, c. 342, § 1, alleged that the defendant, at a time and place named, kept a certain room in a building described, and occupied “said room with apparatus, books, betting-tickets, and other devices, for the purpose of registering bets and of buying and selling pools upon the results of trials and contests of skill, speed, and endurance of men, beasts, birds, and machines, and upon the results of certain games of ball to be played between contesting base-ball players.” Held, that the complaint was not bad for duplicity.
Complaint to the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, on the St. of 1885, c. 342, § 1, alleging that the defendant, on January 3, 1886, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of making this complaint, July 3, 1886, at Boston, “did keep a certain room in the second story of the building numbered two hundred and twenty-one in Washington Street, in said Boston, and within said district, and did then and on said other days and times there occupy said room with apparatus, books, betting-tickets, and other devices, a further description of said apparatus, books, betting-tickets, and other devices being to the complainant unknown, for the purpose of registering bets and of buying and selling pools upon the results of trials and contests of skill, speed, and endurance of men, beasts, birds, and machines, and upon the results of certain games of ball to be played between contesting base-ball players, against the peace of said Commonwealth and the form of the statute in such case made and provided.”
In the Superior Court, on appeal, the defendant moved to quash the complaint, on the ground that the same was bad for duplicity. This motion was also made and disallowed in the court below. Staples, J., overruled the motion. The defendant then entered a plea of nolo contendere, which was accepted by the government.
The judge, at the defendant’s request, reported the case to this court for its decision of the question of law arising on said motion to quash.
If the motion to quash should have been allowed, the defendant was to have leave to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere, and the complaint was to be quashed; otherwise, judgment to be entered on the plea.
F. F. Heard f C. J. BrooJcs, for the defendant.
H. N. Shepard, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
C. Allen, J.
The objection on the ground of duplicity cannot be supported.- The offence charged is not the registering of a bet, or the selling of a pool, although these are criminal acts ; but the keeping of a room for the purpose of doing those things. It makes no difference, in this respect, how many different unlawful or criminal purposes the room was kept for. The offence of keeping it for those various purposes is a single one, and may properly be charged in one count. Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Gray, 328, 330.
Judgment for the Commonwealth.