Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Minnie Brown
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1886-01-30
Citations: 141 Mass. 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Minnie Brown.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 78–79

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Minnie Brown.
Suffolk.
January 29.—30, 1886.
Holmes & Gardner, JJ., absent.
A complaint, on the Pub. Sts. c. 207, § 29, alleging that the defendant, on a day named, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of making the complaint, at B., “ was and is an idle and disorderly person, and on said days and times, at said B., has neglected all lawful business and habitually misspent her time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming-houses, and tippling-shops,” is sufficient, without further alleging that the defendant was under any necessity or duty of laboring or supporting herself, or following any business or vocation.
Complaint to the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, alleging that the defendant, on March 6,1885, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of making the complaint, at Boston, “ was and is an idle and disorderly person, and on said days and times, at said Boston, has neglected all lawful business and habitually misspent her time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming-houses, and tippling-shops, against the peace,” <fcc.
In the Municipal Court, and in the Superior Court, on appeal, before the jury were empanelled, the defendant moved to quash the complaint, assigning, among other reasons therefor, the following : “ There is no averment that the defendant was under any necessity or duty of laboring or supporting herself, or following any business or vocation.” Blodgett, J., overruled the motion.
The defendant thereupon pleaded nolo contendere ; and alleged exceptions to the overruling of the motion to quash.
G. W. Searle O. R. Morse, for the defendant,
cited Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 5 Allen, 511, 513.
E. J. Sherman, Attorney General, 3. N. Shepard, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The only question in this case is whether the complaint should have been quashed as insufficient. It follows the words of the statute, is in the form which is uniformly used, and which has been recognized as sufficient in numerous adjudged cases. The motion to quash was rightly overruled. Pub. Sts. c. 207, § 29. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 5 Allen, 511. Commonwealth v. Doherty, 137 Mass. 245. Commonwealth v. Hart, 137 Mass. 247, n.
Exceptions overruled.