Case Name: Commonwealth vs. James Moriarty
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1883-10-01
Citations: 135 Mass. 540
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. James Moriarty.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. James Moriarty.
Hampden.
Sept. 25.
Oct. 1, 1883.
Field & W. Allen, JJ., absent.
An indictment, on the Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 12, alleged that the defendant broke and entered, in the night-time, a certain building in S., “ to wit, the office building ” of a corporation named, with intent to commit larceny therein. At the trial there was evidence that the building entered was used for the general office of the corporation, and that there were other buildings in S. owned by the corporation and used for its subordinate offices. Held, that the building entered was sufficiently described in the indictment.
Indictment, on the Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 12, charging that the defendant, at Springfield, on January 9, 1882, in the nighttime, did break and enter “ a certain building, to wit, the office building of the Boston and Albany Railroad Company,” with intent to commit larceny therein. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
Albert Holt, the paymaster of the Boston and Albany Railroad Company, testified for the government, among other things, as follows: “ There are four buildings in Springfield bwned by said corporation other than the one which was broken into, the other buildings having in them rooms used as offices for business done in the buildings. One of the other office buildings is situated about four hundred feet, one about one thousand feet, and one about'fifteen hundred feet, from the one alleged to have been broken into. The one broken into was the paymaster’s room in a building used for the general office of the company; the corporation had other general offices, but no other in Springfield.” Upon this evidence, the defendant asked the judge to rule that the indictment did not contain a sufficient description of the building alleged to have been broken; but the judge refused so to rule.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
E. H. Lathrop, for the defendant.
E. J. Sherman, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The indictment alleges that the defendant broke and entered a certain building situated in Springfield, " to wit, the office building of the Boston and Albany Railroad Company." This is a sufficient description of the building.
The proof that the building broken was the building used for the general office of the company sustained the allegation of the indictment; it is not important that there were other buildings in Springfield owned by the company and used for its subordinate offices. Exceptions overruled.