History
  • No items yet
midpage
Commonwealth v. Carr
143 Mass. 84
Mass.
1886
Check Treatment
C. Allen, J.

It was not necessary to offer direct evidence that the laying out of the way was duly filed in the town clerk’s office. The action of the selectmen and of the town presuppose that this had been done, and warrant an inference of the fact. See Blossom v. Cannon, 14 Mass. 177; Wallace v. Townsend Parish, 109 Mass. 263; United States Bank v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 64, 70; Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226, 250 ; Steph. Ev. (Am.ed.) 187, 271; Williams v. Eyton, 4 H. & N. 357.

The license to the defendant to place a gate on the road could not include an authority to keep the gate locked, with the key in his own possession, which would be equivalent to stopping up the road.

It was not essential that the jury should agree upon the special issue submitted to them; and no objection was taken at the time to the course of the judge in receiving the verdict.

Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Carr
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Nov 24, 1886
Citation: 143 Mass. 84
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.