Maris v. Parry
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL. This was an assize of nuisance originally commenced in the Court of Common Pleas oí Bucles county, by William Maris against Benjamin and and removed certiorari to the circuit court. At a circuit court held at Doylestown, by the late Judge Smith, on the 22d of February, 1830, all the twenty-four recognitors summoned by the sheriff appeared except two, who made default; but the cause was continued in consequence of the absence of' a material witness for the defendants.
Read the full summary
APPEAL. This was an assize of nuisance originally commenced in the Court of Common Pleas oí Bucles county, by William Maris against Benjamin and and removed certiorari to the circuit court. At a circuit court held at Doylestown, by the late Judge Smith, on the 22d of February, 1830, all the twenty-four recognitors summoned by the sheriff appeared except two, who made default; but the cause was continued in consequence of the absence of' a material witness for the defendants. A circuit court was held by the Chief Justice on the 7th of March, 1831, when twenty-three of the recognitors appeared,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Huston, J.
In this case I shall content myself with giving the decision of the court as I understand it, without pretending to explain the assize of nuisance, or direct the mode of proceeding in it.
In Barnett v. Ihrie, 17 Serg. & Rawle, 212, it is said, “ The recognitors are not jurors; they are not summoned for a single term, but to attend the cause from its inception to its termination; and this they must necessarily do as they are to have a view before the return of the writ.” — Agreeably to this, which is also the doctrine of Livezey v. Gorgas, 1…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barnet v. IhrieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Gondran v. RostSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1895