
    Commonwealth vs. Susan Murray.
    Evidence of the use of profane language is competent upon the trial of a complaint for being an idle and disorderly person.
    Complaint for being an idle and disorderly person. At the trial in the court of common pleas in Bristol, at June term 1859, Morris, J. permitted the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the defendant’s objection, to introduce evidence, in connection with other evidence as to her conduct, that the defendant used profane language. The defendant, being convicted, alleged exceptions.
    
      E. L. Ba/rney, for the defendant.
    .The use of profane language has no tendency to show that the defendant was an idle or disorderly person; but is punishable as a distinct offence under Rev. Sts. c. 130, § 16.
    S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   Hoar, J.

Evidence of the habitual use of profane language is evidence of disorderly conduct. Profaneness is a violation of law, and contrary to the good order of society.

Exceptions overruled.  