Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1827

Commonwealth v. Parmenter

Commonwealth v. Parmenter
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided October 15, 1827
22 Mass. 279

Commonwealth v. Parmenter

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

As the indictment sets out the note accord"ng to its purport and effect, and not according to its tenor, we think the variance is not material. I promised would be construed to mean I promise 1

But it was not sufficiently proved that the offence was committed in the county of Worcester. The evidence was only that the note was here uttered. It is clear from authority, that the offence of forging in the county cannot be inferred from the fact of uttering and publishing in the county.2

See 3 Chitty on Crim. Law, (3d Amer. ed.) 1039, 1040, and notes.

See 1 Chitty on Crim. Law, (3d Amer. ed.) 190; 3 id. 1039, and notes *280United States v. Britton, 2 Mason, 464; Spencer v. Commonwealth, 2 Leigh, 751; 2 Russell on Crimes, (3d Amer. ed.) 371 to 374.

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