Keefhaver v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On a certiorari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Adams County, the case was this: At November sessions, 1828, Eliza* beth Keef haver became bound with Peter Keef haver, as her surety, in the penalty of 500 dollars, upon condition that she should appear at the next sessions, to answer, &c., and “not depart the' Court without leave,” &c.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On a certiorari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Adams County, the case was this: At November sessions, 1828, Eliza* beth Keef haver became bound with Peter Keef haver, as her surety, in the penalty of 500 dollars, upon condition that she should appear at the next sessions, to answer, &c., and “not depart the' Court without leave,” &c. She appeared at the next sessions, January, 1829, and upon trial was acquitted, by the jury, who under the act of 8th December, 1804, Purd. J). t. Indictment, 357, determined by their verdict, that she should pay the costs of prosecution: whereupon…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion o'f the .Court was delivered by
GibsoN, C. J
The forfeiture of the recognizances was recorded under a supposition that the condition required more than a 'bare appearance. In civil cases the .condition is to pay the costs and condemnation money in case the principal do not render him-self a prisoner ; but in criminal cases, it is that he appear and answer, and not depart without licence, which certainly seems to look to nothing beyond his presence in Court. Even were this doubtful, the 'form of the proclamation by which he is required to -“come forth and appear,” and the bail <j:to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TeevensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- State v. MorganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State v. BeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1891