Case Name: Commonwealth versus Jonas White
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1829-10-06
Citations: 8 Pick. 453
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth versus Jonas White.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
Commonwealth versus Jonas White.
By St. 1785, c. 28, § 1, a person committing certain trespasses therein specified is subjected to a fine, to the use of the Commonwealth, to be recovered on complaint before a justice of the peace ; and by St. 1800, c. 57, § 4, all penalties and forfeitures given or limited by any act, in whole or in part, to the use of this Commonwealth, may be recovered by indictment in any court proper to try the same. Heldy that the Court of Common Pleas have original jurisdiction of the offences enumerated in the first section of the statute of 1785.
The defendant was convicted on an indictment for perjury m his testimony before the grand jury for the Court of Common Pleas ; which testimony related to the offence of break ing glass, supposed to have been committed by certain persons, against the provisions of St. 1785, c. 28, § 1. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, that the offence of breaking glass is, by the provisions of the statute, exclusively cognizable by justices of the peace ; and therefore his testimony before the grand jury was extra-judicial.
Oct. 6th.
The case was submitted without argument.
Davis, Solicitor-General, for the Commonwealth.
J. Davis and Kendall, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Parker C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. -The question is, whether the Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction of the offence, in regard to which the defendant is alleged to have committed the crime of perjury ; if it had not jurisdiction, the whole matter was coram non judice, and therefore no oath could be lawfully administered.
By St. 1785, c. 28, this offence was to be prosecuted by a complaint before a justice of the peace ; so that under that statute, the Court of Sessions, or its successor, the Court of Common Pleas, had no original jurisdiction. But by St. 1800, c. 57, §4, it. is provided, " that all penalties and forfeitures given or limited by any act of this Commonwealth, in whole or in part, to the use of this Commonwealth, may be recovered by indictment in any court proper to try the same."
By St. 1785, c. 28, which creates the offence in regard to which the defendant testified before the grand jury, the whole penalty was given to the Commonwealth ; so that this case comes clearly within the words of St. 1800, c. 57, § 4. The only question therefore is, whether the Court of Common Pleas was the proper court for the trial of the offence. As general authority was given to the Court of Sessions to try all misdemeanors for which the punishment was fine or imprisonment, and all the powers of the Court of Sessions in criminal matters are transferred to the Court of Common Pleas, the authority of the latter court is unquestionable.
Motion overruled.