Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Benjamin Dormer
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1858-10
Citations: 11 Gray 318
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Benjamin Dormer.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 318–318

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Benjamin Dormer.
A continuance of an indictment on St. 1855, c. 215, is effectual, although no written statement is filed of the reasons therefor, pursuant to § 35.
Indictment found at June term 1857 of the court of common pleas, under St. 1855, c. 215, § 17, for being a common seller of intoxicating liquor.
Upon a trial at the same term, the jury disagreed, and the case was continued by the court to the next October term; but no written statement was made, either in behalf of the defendant or by the prosecuting officer, setting forth the reasons for a continuance, notwithstanding the provision of St. 1855, c. 215, § 35, that “ the prosecuting officer shall not have authority to enter a nolle prosequi, or to grant a continuance, in any case arising under this act, either before or after the verdict, except where the purposes of justice may require it, which shall be shown either upon a written motion filed in the case on behalf of the defendant, or a written statement filed by the prosecuting officer, stating the reason for a continuance.” And upon this ground the defendant contended that he could not legally be tried at October term. Bishop, J. overruled the motion, and the defendant, being convicted, alleged exceptions.
E. Ripley, for the defendant,
cited St. 1855, c. 215, § 35; Commonwealth v. Thompson, 2 Gray, 82; Amherst v. Hadley, 1 Pick 38 ; People v. M'Kay, 18 Johns. 212.
S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth, was stopped

Opinion:
By the Court,
who
Overruled the exceptions.