Case Name: Commonwealth versus Timothy Cunningham and Others
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1816-06
Citations: 12 Tyng 245
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth versus Timothy Cunningham and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 200–202

Head Matter:
Commonwealth versus Timothy Cunningham and Others.
A plea of an acquittal by a justice of the peace was holden to be a sufficient bar to an indictment for an assault and battery, which alleged, that the life of the person beaten was put in great danger.
The defendants were indicted, at the last June term in this county, for assaulting, beating, wounding, and ill-treating one Mary Gove, so that her life was put in great danger; et alia enormia, fyc.
At the last September term, the defendants pleaded in bar and set forth a process issued by a justice of the peace for this county against them, upon the complaint of the said Mary, and Elijah Gove, her husband, for the same assault and battery, upon which, after a full hearing, they were acquitted by the justice, and discharged of the said complaint, to go without day ; and they made a profert of a copy of the justice’s record ; with an averment, that the assault, &c., in the said complaint and process, and those set forth in this indictment, are the same, and not other nor diverse ; that the said justice of the peace had full jurisdiction of the said complaint, and of the matters therein set forth ; and that they, the now defendants, are the same persons named in the complaint and proceedings before the justice.
The Attorney-General, after oyer of the proceedings * before the justice, and protesting, that the said assault and battery, complained of to the said justice of the peace, was of a high and aggravated nature, and not within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace to determine, and that the said complaint was made for the sole purpose to have the defendants duly bound by recognizance to appear at the then next Supreme Judicial Court or Circuit Court of Common Pleas to be held in said county, and to /equire them to find sureties for their keeping the peace, &c., demurred to the plea of the defendants, who joined in the demurrer.
At this term, the Solicitor- General, in support of the plea, observed, that he had not been informed by the Attorney-General on what ground he expected to maintain the demurrer ; but he argued, that the indictment, by alleging that the woman’s life was put in great danger, show's this to have been an assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, of which a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction by our statute, except to bind the offenders to theit appearance before this Court, or some other competent tribunal. This was the only ground, the Solicitor- General observed, on which he could conjecture that the Attorney-General had thought fit to demur to the plea.
Orr, for the defendants.
The words relied on in the indictment are merely formal, and are to be found in every indictment for an assault and battery. The plea, however, avers, that the justice had jurisdiction of the offence ; and this is confessed by the demurrer. Besides which, the legal presumption is in favor of the jurisdiction, w'here an acquittal takes place.
Stat. 1783, c. 51, § 1.

Opinion:
The Court suggested, that, when the papers were handed to them, they were somewhat at a loss to conjecture upon what ground the Attorney-General meant to rest his demurrer. Upon looking into the proceedings of the justice, as shown on oyer, some inaccuracies were observable; but these were not mentioned in the argument, and, upon consideration, they seemed well enough.
* As to the ground taken by the Solicitor- General, it is . wholly untenable. We cannot say, from this record, that the justice had not authority by law to try the defendants, and, according to his discretion, upon the evidence, to acquit or convict them. The words relied on are generally used merely of course. Every battery, in strictness of speech, may be said to put the life of the sufferer in danger. But, in this case, there is an express averment, that the justice had jurisdiction of the matter; and this is not traversed. This must certainly be a sufficient answer to the argument from the language of the indictment.
Plea in bar good.