128 Mass. 70 | Mass. | 1880
The indictment in this case contains certain unnecessary allegations. It is founded on the St. of 1875, c. 211, § 2, which is in these words: “ Whoever shall by intimidation or force prevent or seek to prevent any other person or persons from entering or continuing in the employment of any corporation, company or individual, shall be punished therefor by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars.” The allegations that the defendant “ did intimidate, and did seek to intimidate,” are not allegations of any offence under the statute, and must be rejected as of no value. There remains the allegation, “ by force and intimidation, did seek to prevent from continuing in the employment,” &c. This allegation is in the language of the statute, and is sufficient. When an offence is created by statute which sets forth with precision and certainty all the elements of the offence, an indictment or complaint is sufficient which charges the offence in the words of the statute. Commonwealth v. Raymond, 97 Mass. 567. Commonwealth v. Barrett, 108 Mass. 302. Commonwealth v. Malloy, 119 Mass. 347. Commonwealth v. Ashton, 125 Mass. 384. See also Commonwealth v. McClellan, 101 Mass. 34. But when the words of a statute may by their generality embrace cases falling within its literal terms, which are not within its meaning or spirit, the indictment or complaint must set forth all facts necessary to bring the case within the meaning of the statute. Commonwealth v. Filburn, 119 Mass. 297.
The case at bar is within the rule first above stated. The statute under - consideration sets forth with precision and certainty all the elements necessary to constitute the offence in
