Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Richard O'Brien
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1890-11-25
Citations: 152 Mass. 495
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Richard O’Brien.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 495–496

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Richard O’Brien.
Essex.
November 5, 1890.
November 25, 1890.
Present: Field, C. J., D evens, W. Allen, Holmes, & Knowlton, JJ.
Intoxicating Liquors — Complaint — Warrant — Record — Extrinsic Evidence.
If a complaint purports to have been properly received and sworn to before a police court, and the warrant to have been properly issued by that court, oral evidence, offered by the defendant to show that when the complaint was made and the warrant issued the court was not in session, is incompetent.
Two complaints, for keeping intoxicating liquors with intent unlawfully to sell the same. The record in each case recited that the complaint was addressed “ To the Justice of the Police Court of Haverhill.” The jurat annexed to each complaint recited that it was received and sworn to “ before said court,” and was signed “ E. B. George, Clerk.” The warrant in each case, which recited the averments of the complaint and directed the defendant “ to appear before said court ” forthwith, was issued under the seal of the court, bore the teste of the justice of the court, and was signed in the same manner as the .jurat annexed to the complaint.
In the Superior Court in each case, before the jury was impanelled, the defendant renewed a motion made by him in the police court to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the complaint and warrant were not sworn to or certified or issued according to law. The defendant offered, in support of each motion, the testimony of Edward B. George, clerk of the Police Court of Haverhill, to show that, when the complaint was received and sworn to and the warrant issued, the police court was not in session. Sherman, J., refused to admit the evidence, and overruled the motions, and the defendant excepted.
The defendant was then tried and found guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
B. F. Brickett O. H. Poor, for the defendant.
A. J. Waterman, Attorney General, S. G. Bliss, First Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
Knowlton, J.
In each of these cases the complaint purported to have been properly received and sworn to before the Police Court of Haverhill, and the warrant to have been properly issued by the court. The motion to dismiss was rightly overruled. The oral evidence offered to impeach the record was incompetent. Kelley v. Dresser, 11 Allen, 31. Commonwealth v. Intoxicating Liquors, 135 Mass. 519.
Exceptions overruled.