
    Leander Bushman vs. Commonwealth.
    Suffolk.
    Jan. 30.
    Feb. 26, 1885.
    Devens, W. Allen, & Colburn, JJ., absent.
    If an indictment contains several counts, each charging the larceny of property of a different person, the court is not hound to assume that the larcenies were one and the same offence, although alleged to have been committed on the same day.
    Writ oe error, to reverse a judgment rendered for the Commonwealth, at January term, 1884, of the Superior Court for the county of Suffolk, for the transaction of criminal business, upon an indictment in five counts.
    The first count alleged that the plaintiff in error at Boston, on December 29, 1883, “ divers promissory notes of the amount and of the value in all of twenty-four dollars, of the property, goods, and chattels of one James Bartlett, in his possession then and there being, did then and there feloniously steal, take, and carry away.”
    Each of the subsequent counts alleged an offence of a similar character, on the same day, at Boston, the subject-matter of the theft being alleged to be the property of a different person in each count, except in the fourth and fifth, in which the property was alleged to be in the same person.
    The record set forth that the indictment was found and returned into court by the grand jury at January term, 1884, when the plaintiff in error was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the first, second, third, and fifth counts. The record then proceeded as follows:
    “ The said Bushman, being convicted of three distinct larcenies at the present term, is deemed and adjudged a common and notorious thief. It is therefore considered by the court that the said Bushman, for his offence as set forth in his plea to said indictment, be punished by confinement in the house of correction in the county of Suffolk, there to be kept at hard labor, according to the rules of the same, for the term of two years, and that he stand committed until he be removed in pursuance of said sentence.”
    
      The assignment of error alleged that, by the record of the court, he could not be legally so adjudged, declared, and sentenced. Plea, in nullo est erratum.
    
    
      C. H. Hudson & P. J. Casey, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      H. N. Shepard, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   C. Allen, J.

If the various counts in the indictment were intended to charge but a single transaction, namely, the larceny at the same time of the property of several different persons, only one count was necessary. Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 107 Mass. 208. It does not appear on the record in the present case whether the larcenies were or were not distinct. We are not bound to assume that they were one and the same offence, though alleged to have been committed on the same day. No error appears on the record. Carlton v. Commonwealth, 5 Met. 532. Crowley v. Commonwealth, 11 Met. 575. Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 135 Mass. 266. Pettes v. Commonwealth, 126 Mass. 242. Commonwealth v. Hills, 10 Cush. 530.

Judgment affirmed.  