Commonwealth v. Bowers
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Commonwealth v. Subilosky (Mass. 1967)
- Murphy v. Murphy (Mass. 1923)
- State v. Brink (Vt. 1896)
- Turner Bau-Verein No. 3 v. Dahlheimer (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1895)
- Commonwealth v. Blair (Mass. 1877)
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
The defendants were discovered in the bedroom of a hotel at midnight, under circumstances which, if unexplained, would warrant a jury in finding them guilty of the offence charged.
The conversation offered in evidence was properly excluded at the trial. It was not in reply to any evidence introduced by the government, but to meet the position taken by the district attorney, that the defendants left their homes in Greenfield and went to Shelburne Falls, “for an adulterous purpose.” This was in the nature of an argument upon the evidence presented. Whether they went there for an adulterous purpose is entirely immaterial to the defence. If they did not, but went for another purpose, that fact would have no tendency to explain the position in which the officer found them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.