
    Commonwealth vs. Leonard D. Drury.
    Suffolk.
    April 1, 1889.
    April 6, 1889.
    Present: Morton, C. J., Field, Devens, W. Allen, & Holmes, JJ.
    
      Assault with Dangerous Weapon — Evidence.
    
    At the trial of an indictment for an assault with a billy, the defendant, who was permitted to testify that he had carried the hilly for twenty years, and that he did not carry it for the purpose of assailing the person assaulted, was asked, “ Why did you carry that billy ? ” Held, that the question was rightly excluded.
    Indictment for an assault with a “ dangerous weapon, to wit, with a certain billy,” upon one Harvey.
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Hammond, J., there was evidence on the part of the government tending to show that Drury struck Harvey several blows with a leather-covered metallic instrument known as a “black-jack,” injuring him severely. The defendant’s counsel then put this question to him: “ Why did you carry that billy ? ” The judge excluded the question, and to this ruling the defendant excepted. The defendant was then asked, “ Did you carry that billy for the purpose of assaulting Harvey ? ” This question was admitted, and the defendant replied in the negative. The defendant was allowed to state that he had carried the billy twenty years.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      P. J. Casey, for the defendant.
    
      A. J. Waterman, Attorney General, Sp H. A. Wyman, Second Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

The defendant was permitted to testify that he had carried the billy for twenty years, and that he did not carry it for the purpose of assaulting Harvey. The further question, “Why did you carry that billy?” was immaterial. His reason for habitually carrying a billy did not tend to prove that he did not attack Harvey with it.

Exceptions overruled.  