Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1812

Commonwealth v. Moulton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided May 15, 1812

9 Mass. 30

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Bohannon v. State (Ala. 1882)
Hall v. State (Ala. 1875)
State v. Pray (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1843)
State v. Casados (S.C. 1818)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

This motion cannot prevail. The objection has been often made, and as often overruled. When the party from whom goods were stolen was by law entitled to treble the value, he was always received as a competent witness as to all pertinent facts, (a) That was a higher interest than this in the case at bar. The practice is too well established to be shaken at this day. (b)

Motion overruled.

[Vide The State vs. Vaughan, 1 Bay. Rep. 282, contra.—Ed.][

[At common law, when a conviction will enure directly and immediately to the benefit of a prosecutor, he is an incompetent witness. — Howard vs. Shipley, 4 East)

*37Rep. 180.--Rex vs. Bevan & Others, Ry. & Mood. 242. — Commonwealth vs. Frost, 5 Mass. Rep. 53. — And where a statute gives.a specific remedy to a party injured, he is as much disqualified for a witness in a criminal prosecution, as if he sought the remedy by a civil action. —Starkie, Ev. Part 4. p. 774. — B. N. P. 289. But in many cases, the party injured, or prosecutor, who may derive a benefit from the conviction, is either expressly or by implication rendered competent, by virtue of the act respecting the offence, or the prosecution of it. But in the statute cited by the prisoner’s counsel in the principal case, there is no express provision to that effect, nor any thing from which it may be very clearly inferred. — Ed.]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.