Legal Opinion

Russell v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 7, 1822PublishedCited by 5 opinions

In Error. ERROR to the Court of Oyer and Terminer.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tilghman C. J.

The prisoner was indicted for burglary and larceny. He was acquitted of the burglary and convicted of the larceny. The indictment did not conclude against the form of the Act of Assembly, &c. This conviction was at a Court of Oyer and Terminer, held on the 9th of January, 1819, at which time the defendant was under sentence of imprisonment for another offence, to continue until the 23d December, 1821. Judgment was given against him, in the present case, “ to pay a fine of one dollar to the Com - monwealth, and to undergo a servitude at…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Commonwealth v. SearleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Oregon v. IceSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. United States v. Christopher LaranetaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012
  3. People v. ForbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  4. In re McCormick for a Habeas CorpusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
  5. Oregon v. IceSupreme Court of the United States · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API