Shenk v. Mingle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. This writ of error was to the District Court for the city and county of Lancaster, where Mary Mingle, the plaintiff below, obtained a verdict and judgment against John Shenk, the plaintiff in error, for the sum of 1016 dollars damages, on the last count in the declaration.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This writ of error was to the District Court for the city and county of Lancaster, where Mary Mingle, the plaintiff below, obtained a verdict and judgment against John Shenk, the plaintiff in error, for the sum of 1016 dollars damages, on the last count in the declaration. The declaration charged, that whereas the said John, the 1st day of June, in the year of our Lord 1820, seduced, and carnally knew the said Mary, and got her with a living male bastard child, whereof she was afterwards delivered, to wit, on the 1st day of March, 1821, at the county of Lancaster, in consideration…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
It is attended with some difficulty to understand the declaration, whether it consists of one, two, or three counts. But however this may be, and however faulty it might have been *32on demurrer, yet the verdict cures all these defects. The additional errors are added without leave of the court, and against their rules, and will not be noticed. Experience has shown that this is a most useful regulation; and it will be adhered to, inflexibly, by the court. If, from oversight, a material matter has been omitted in the required specification, on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Girard v. TaggartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818