Respublica v. Hevice
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Conspiracy. The indictment stated, that Catharine Speis was an infant of thirteen years of age, (her father, Peter Speis, being dead, and Susannah her mother married to Casper Gregor,) and under the guardianship of Michael Smyser and Matthias Smyser, both as to person and estate, and that the same Catharine was entitled to a large property under her father’s will, to wit, 1000Í., and resided with the said Casper and Susannah, with the consent of her said guardians ; and that…
Read the full summary
Conspiracy. The indictment stated, that Catharine Speis was an infant of thirteen years of age, (her father, Peter Speis, being dead, and Susannah her mother married to Casper Gregor,) and under the guardianship of Michael Smyser and Matthias Smyser, both as to person and estate, and that the same Catharine was entitled to a large property under her father’s will, to wit, 1000Í., and resided with the said Casper and Susannah, with the consent of her said guardians ; and that the said defendants well knowing the premises, on the 11th August 1795, did conspire together to deprive the said…
1Opinion of the Court
Catharine Speis was produced as a witness on the part of the com monwealth and was excepted to.
On the 30th September 1795, upon a full hearing on a habeas corpus returnable before M’Kean, C. J. and Shippen, J. at York assizes, she was permitted to return to her step-fathers’s and was told that Mitchel Hervice should not molest her or compel her to live with him.
This evidence was opposed by the defendant’s counsel, who contended that the offence charged was a conspiracy, and not a forcible carrying away the girl afterwards. This latter offence might be the subject of another prosecution.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Rose v. NilesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1849