## Facts

- On March 15, 1819, the town of Williamstown, Massachusetts held a lawful town meeting to elect town officers.
- The meeting was organized with a moderator presiding over the proceedings and receiving votes.
- During the voting, T. F. Hoxey interrupted the meeting and publicly declared that the “old selectmen should not be elected.”
- Hoxey attempted to interfere with the vote by trying to take votes from a box.
- An indictment charged Hoxey with a violent and rude disturbance of citizens lawfully assembled, tending to a breach of the peace and the prevention of elections, and it concluded “contra formam statuti” (against the form of a statute).
- A jury found Hoxey guilty of behaving in a disorderly and indecent manner, disturbing the peace and quiet of the meeting, and violating the rights of private suffrage.
- Massachusetts had no statute that directly made Hoxey’s specific conduct a statutory crime, and Hoxey challenged the indictment and conviction on that basis.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment that concludes “against the form of the statute” is valid when the cited statute does not apply, if the facts alleged still state an offense at common law.
2. Whether a violent, rude, or disorderly disturbance of a lawful town meeting during an election, tending to a breach of the peace and the prevention of elections, is punishable as a common-law misdemeanor in Massachusetts absent a statute.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the indictment was not defeated by its “contra formam statuti” conclusion where the factual allegations described an offense at common law and were not actually within any statute.
- The court held that violently or rudely disturbing citizens lawfully assembled in a town meeting in a manner tending to breach the peace and obstruct elections is a punishable common-law misdemeanor.

## Legal Principles

- A violent, rude, or disorderly interruption of a lawful town meeting—especially conduct that tends toward breach of the peace and interference with elections—may be prosecuted as a common-law misdemeanor even without a statute directly covering the act.
- Where an indictment’s factual allegations state a common-law offense, an incorrect statutory reference or a concluding phrase such as “contra formam statuti” does not necessarily invalidate the charge.
- For a common-law breach-of-the-peace type offense tied to disruption of a public assembly, it is enough that the conduct tends toward public disorder or interference with the orderly conduct of the meeting; the prosecution need not show that the election was successfully stopped.

## Conclusion

*Commonwealth v. Hoxey* sustained a conviction based on common law for disrupting a town election meeting and held that an indictment could stand even though it mistakenly concluded “against the form of the statute,” because the facts alleged described an indictable common-law disturbance tending to breach the peace and impede elections.


Commonwealth v. Hoxey, 16 Mass. 385 (1820)