(Download) "Commonwealth v. Brisbois" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Commonwealth v. Brisbois
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 28, 1932
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
CROSBY, J. The defendant was found guilty on a complaint charging him with the larceny of a wooden frame building of less than $100 in value from the real estate of one Wilfred Trudeau. G. L. c. 266, § 44. This statute provides in part that 'Whoever by a trespass, with intent to steal, takes and carries away anything which is parcel of the realty or is annexed thereto, the property of another and of value, against his will, shall be guilty of such simple or aggravated larceny as he would be guilty of if such property were personal property. * * *' By deed dated January 29, 1930, the defendant conveyed by warranty deed to Trudeau a tract of land, and by another warranty deed dated December 6, 1930, the defendant's wife conveyed to Trudeau a tract of land. Both deeds were duly recorded in the registry of deeds. There was evidence tending to show that on the lands conveyed there was a wooden building from thirty to thirty-five feet in length and about twelve feet wide which rested on wooden posts. The grantee testified that on December 10, 1930, he saw the defendant and a number of men loading one half of the building upon a 'low gear'; that the posts upon which it rested had been 'sawed through,' and the building had been sawed into two parts; that in answer to inquiry by Trudeau the defendant said the building was his property and he was going to take it away; that Trudeau told him that it was his property and warned the defendant not to remove it; and that the defendant continued to load a section of the building on the 'low gear' and took it to premises occupied by the defendant's wife. During the course of the trial the defendant offered to show that an attorney who acted for him brought the deed in question to be signed; that he and his wife objected to the words 'buildings and improvements' therein, so that she would retain the title to the building on the premises, and that the attorney said he would see that those words were omitted. This offer of proof was excluded and the defendant excepted. The defendant does not contend that the deeds were not properly executed, acknowledged and recorded. The offer of proof was rightly excluded. The attorney had no authority to make any change in the deed after it had been executed, and neither the defendant nor his wife could rely upon his statement that such change would be made. Commonwealth v. Middleby, 187 Mass. 342, 348, 73 N.E. 208. If the defendant were ignorant of the law, it would not be a defence. Commonwealth v. O'Connell, 274 Mass. 315, 321, 174 N.E. 665. 'In the absence of fraud or mistake, all previous or contemporary verbal negotiations are merged in the written instrument, which is conclusively presumed to express the bargain.' Jennings v. Puffer, 203 Mass. 534, 537, 538, 89 N.E. 1036, 1037; Perry v. J. L. Mott Iron Works Co., 207 Mass. 501, 93 N.E. 798; Khederian v. John T. Connor Co., 262 Mass. 29, 33, 159 N.E. 443.