Court Opinion

ID: 9542408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:33:57.571657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:50.685405
License: Public Domain

Cutter, J.
(concurring) The representations by Ancillo alleged in the indictment seem to me to be representations of existing fact or intention. Commonwealth v. Crowley, 257 Mass. 590, 594. See Commonwealth v. Morrison, 252 Mass. 116, 122. I agree that the falsity of these representations was not adequately established by the testimony of members of the board of appeals to the effect that they had not discussed Taber’s application for a variance with Ancillo or heard of any discussion of $12,000.
Ancillo also represented to Taber that “they want $12,000.” The judge could reasonably infer that the word “they” referred to the board of appeals, which had legal power to grant a variance; Upon the testimony, just mentioned above, of the board members he could reasonably conclude that the representation that “they want $12,000” was false. I concur in the result of the opinion on the limited ground that this representation was not sufficiently clearly alleged in the indictment.