State v. Richardson
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Washington. Tried before the Hon. John Bragg. 1. A pardon does not discharge the costs going to the officers, and it was therefore error in the court below in sustaining the motion to quash the execution in the case, without payment of costs. — Bac.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Washington. Tried before the Hon. John Bragg. 1. A pardon does not discharge the costs going to the officers, and it was therefore error in the court below in sustaining the motion to quash the execution in the case, without payment of costs. — Bac. Ab. 7.408, (b;) Exparte McDonald, 2 Whart. 440; Perkins v. Stephens, 24 Pick. 280. 2. A remission of a fine by the Executive does not discharge the moiety going to the informer. — -Rowe v. The State, 2 Bay. 565 ; U. S. v. Lancaster, 4 Wash. C. C. 64. 3. The rule seems to be this, when a fine or forfeiture belongs, and…
1Opinion of the CourtDargan, C. J.
The defendant was indicted in the Cir'•cuit Court of Washington for concealing a slave, who had been indicted for a capital offence. He was convicted and fined one ■thousand dollars, and sentenced to imprisonment in the' county ..jail until the fine and costs were paid. After being imprisoned for some time, he was pardoned by the Governor from further imprisonment, but the pardon did not mention the fine. After lie was discharged from imprisonment, several writs of fieri facias were issued against his property, and at the fall term 184Í), he moved the court to quash the writs of execution and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cooper v. BigalowNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Little v. President of Newburyport BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. FoleyNevada Supreme Court · 1880
- United States v. PrattDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1927