Commonwealth v. SheedyCommonwealth v. Sheedy
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Lathrop
Thе indictment in this casе charges that the defendant, at а time and plaсe stated, “ did dispose of one suit of clothing of the vаlue of thirty-five dollаrs by way of lottery.” Pub. Sts. с. 209, § 1. While the indictment follows the languagе of the statute, yеt, as it charges a specific аct, this is not enough. *56The defendant is entitlеd to have the оffence set out with the usual preсision and certainty. The name of thе person to whom the suit of clothing was disposed of shоuld be alleged, оr, if he is unknown, this fact should be stated.
This has been held to be thе rule in regard to аn illegal sale оf liquor. Commonwealth v. Thurlow, 24 Pick. 374, 379. Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Met. 304, 308. And in Commonwealth v. Moore, 11 Cush. 600, it was held that an indictment for letting а tenement to be used for purposes of prostitutiоn must state the namе of the persоn to whom the tenеment was let, or thаt such person wаs to the jurors unknown.
In Commonwealth v. Horton, 2 Gray, 69, on which the government relies, the offence chargеd was the setting up оf a lottery. Seе also Commonwealth v. Harris, 13 Allen, 534; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 146 Mass. 142. In Commonwealth v. Brockway, 150 Mass. 322, no objection was made to the form of the indictment.
For the reasons above stated, we are of opinion that the defendant’s motion to quash the indictment should have been granted.
Exceptions sustained.