defendant, but withdrew Jan. 24, 1894, Edwin L. Barney and Lemuel L. Le B. Holmes being assigned in his place. In charge of the Attorney-General, assisted by District Attorney Lloyd E. White.

The opinion of the supreme judicial court, overruling the exceptions taken by the defendant to the form of the indictment, is of importance, inasmuch as the indictment was concisely drawn, and omitted some of the averments which have commonly been regarded as essential. I have long been of the opinion that criminal proceedings, which, as customarily drawn, are often not only prolix and obscure, but sometimes even misleading, could be greatly simplified. In no department of law is there a more conservative, not to say superstitious, adherence to antiquated forms; arising in part, probably, from fear of violating the requirements of the constitution, which provides that offences shall be formally and substantially" described. The opinion of the court makes it certain, at least, that the word "formally" does not necessarily mean that the forms in use at the time of the adoption of the constitution shall be adhered to; and it is very doubtful whether it means anything more than that indictments shall comply with the requirements as to form prescribed from time to time by the Legislature.

"

JOSE VIEIRA SARMENTO of New Bedford was indicted in Bristol, Nov. 11, 1893, for the murder of Maria das Candeias, otherwise called Maria das Candeias de Mello, at New Bedford, June 9, 1893. He was arraigned Nov. 22, 1893, and pleaded not guilty. On March 21, 1894, he retracted his plea, and pleaded guilty of murder in the second degree. The plea was accepted, and March 21, 1894, he was sentenced and committed to the State Prison for life, with one day in solitary confinement. Walter Clifford and James L. Gillingham were assigned as counsel for the defence. The case was in charge of the Attorney-General, assisted by District Attorney Lloyd E. White.

The defendant was a man who had been of good reputation, of mild and peaceable disposition, and whose character up to the time of the tragedy for which he was indicted had been above reproach. The victim of his crime was a young woman

to whom he had been engaged to be married. They had quarrelled in consequence of his claim that she was receiving the attentions of other men. He shot her in a fit of jealousy, and attempted and nearly succeeded in killing himself with the same weapon. An examination of medical experts disclosed that, while he could not be said to be mentally irresponsible, his mind was much affected; and it was at least doubtful how far he was responsible for his acts at the time of the shooting. Under all the circumstances, it was thought that the plea offered was equivalent to what would be the verdict of the jury if the case was tried.

JOHN MACKIE was indicted in Suffolk, Jan. 6, 1894, for the murder of Mercy L. Randall, at Boston, Nov. 21, 1893. He was arraigned Jan. 15, 1894, and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently he retracted his former plea, and pleaded guilty of murder in the second degree. The plea was accepted, and on April 23, 1894, he was sentenced and committed to State Prison for life, the first day in solitary confinement. T. W. Coakley and J. E. Hannigan were assigned as counsel for defendant. In charge of District Attorney Oliver Stevens.

Indictments for murder found since the date of the last annual report have been disposed of as follows: —

MICHAEL CAREY of Southbridge was indicted in Worcester, Jan. 19, 1894, for the murder of Mary Carey, at Southbridge, Oct. 12, 1893. He was arraigned Feb. 8, 1894, and pleaded guilty of murder in the second degree. The plea was ac cepted, and on Feb. 8, 1894, he was sentenced and committed to the State Prison for life, with one day solitary confinement. W. S. B. Hopkins appeared for defendant. In charge of District Attorney Francis A. Gaskill.

VINCENZO CORCHIEDI of Boston was indicted in Suffolk, Feb. 5, 1894, for the murder of Pasquale Sacco, at Boston, on Jan. 7, 1894. He was arraigned Feb. 15, 1894, and pleaded not guilty; was tried May 21, 1894, before Sherman and Fessenden, J. J. The trial resulted in an acquittal. Thos. Riley and Jas. R. Murphy were assigned as counsel for the defendant. They subsequently withdrew, and T. W. Proctor and

Jos. N. Pastine conducted the defence. In charge of District Attorney Oliver Stevens.

KATE HINDS was indicted May 16, 1894, at Worcester, for the murder of a male child, unnamed, at Hardwick, March 26, 1894. She was arraigned June 5, 1894, and pleaded misnomer. On Oct. 25, 1894, being found insane, she was committed to the State Lunatic Hospital at Worcester, to await the further order of the court. J. R. Thayer appeared for the defendant. In charge of District Attorney Francis A. Gaskill.

EDWARD BEAUREGARD and MITCHEL BOUGERON, both of Oxford, were indicted May 16, 1894, for the murder of Maria Davis, at Oxford, Dec. 1, 1893. They were arraigned June 5, 1894, and pleaded not guilty. The indictment was placed on file October, 1894, the defendants both having pleaded guilty to another indictment for manslaughter of said Maria Davis, and having been sentenced thereon and committed to imprisonment in the State Prison for eight years each, with one day in solitary confinement. W. S. B. Hopkins and F. A. Bellish were assigned as counsel for Beauregard, and J. R. Thayer and F. E. Deon for Bougeron. In charge of District Attorney Francis A. Gaskill.

WILLIAM BARRETT was indicted in Middlesex, June 4, 1894, for the murder of James H Farrar, at Weston, May 17, 1894. He was arraigned June 15, 1894, and pleaded not guilty; was tried Nov. 23-28, before Aldrich and Sheldon, J. J. The prisoner was convicted of murder in the second degree, and on Nov. 28, 1894, was sentenced and committed to the State Prison for life, the first day of imprisonment to be in solitary confinement. John B. Goodrich and Arthur J. Selfridge appeared as counsel for the defendant. The trial of the case was conducted by the Attorney-General, assisted by District Attorney Fred N. Wier.

The defendant had burglariously entered the house of the murdered man, who was aroused and started in pursuit of the burglar. The deceased was a constable of the town where the burglary was committed. He did not succeed, however, in overtaking the defendant until he had escaped to an adjoining

town. He attempted to arrest the defendant, and was shot by him in the attempt. There was no denial by the defendant of the fact of the shooting, but it was claimed by him at the trial that the deceased had no authority to arrest him, not being a constable of the town where the arrest was attempted; and that he had no reason to suppose, from the acts of the deceased, that he was attempting to arrest him for the crime he had committed. The case excited much interest in the county, in view of the fact that numerous burglaries had recently been committed in the vicinity, and it was believed that for some of them the defendant was responsible.

FILIPPO PINATELLO of Boston was indicted in Suffolk, Aug. 6, 1894, for the murder of John McEleney, at Boston, July 7, 1894. He was arraigned Aug. 23, 1894, and pleaded not guilty. On Nov. 12, 1894, he was discharged on his own recognizance in the sum of five hundred dollars. A. De Fillipo appeared as counsel for defendant. In charge of District Attorney Oliver Stevens.

The following indictments for murder are pending:

EDWARD JOHN CARROLL of Great Barrington was indicted at Pittsfield, July 9, 1894, for the murder of George Duvernoy, at Great Barrington, May 19, 1894.

JOHN MCMANUS of Boston was indicted in Suffolk, Aug. 6, 1894, for the murder of Margaret McManus, at Boston, July 26, 1894. He was arraigned August 23, and pleaded not guilty. William Schofield and Charles B. Barnes, Jr., were assigned for the defence. In charge of District Attorney Oliver Stevens.

PATRICK SULLIVAN, PATRICK J. FOLEY and CORNELIUS NAGLE were indicted in Middlesex, Oct. 15, 1894, for the murder of Duroy S. Foster, at Billerica, Sept. 11, 1894. They were arraigned Nov. 1, and pleaded severally not guilty. S. K. Hamilton and Francis P. Curran were assigned as counsel for the defence. In charge of District Attorney Fred N. Wier.

WILLIAM G. CARR of Worcester was indicted at Worcester, Oct. 17, 1894, for the murder of Ellen T. Lucier, at Worces

ter, Sept. 29, 1894. He was arraigned Oct. 25, 1894, and pleaded not guilty. John R. Thayer and Arthur P. Rugg were assigned as counsel for the defendant. In charge of District Attorney Francis A. Gaskill.

JOSIAH L. JOHNSON, FRANK LITTLE and FRANK C. HUNT were indicted in Essex, October, 1894, for the murder of Henry Edmund Crosby, at Merrimac, on Aug. 17, 1894. They were arraigned on Oct. 11, 1894, and each pleaded not guilty. The court assigned Henry F. Hurlburt and Horace I. Bartlett as counsel for Johnson, Winfield S. Peters as counsel for Little, and Benjamin F. Brickett and Boyd B. Jones as counsel for Hunt. In charge of District Attorney William H. Moody.

THE OLEOMARGARINE CASES.

The cases of Huntley, in error, against the Commonwealth, and Plumley, in error, against the Commonwealth, involving the constitutionality of our statute, chapter 58 of the Acts of 1891, relating to the manufacture and sale of imitation butter, have been disposed of in the supreme court of the United States since the last annual report of this department. Huntley's case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in error. Plumley's case, which raised the important question whether the Massachusetts statute is in conflict with the commerce clause of the constitution of the United States, was argued before the supreme court of the United States in April last, and a decision has recently been rendered, in which the court, by a majority of six out of the nine justices, sustains the constitutionality of the statute. This decision is of great and farreaching importance. It was claimed by the plaintiff in error, and has been generally understood, that the decision of the court in Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, substantially settled the law that the States are powerless to prevent the sale within their limits of any article of whatsoever character which may be a subject of trade or commerce, if brought from another State, while in the original package in the hands of the importer. The present decision disclaims this doctrine, and holds that it is within the power of the States to exclude from their markets an article of food of deceptive or fraudulent character, which is likely or liable to be sold or taken for