Commonwealth v. Emery
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
in ERROR. UPON error to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county the case was thus: The action -was debt upon a recognisance in 2000 dollars, entered into by the defendant before alderman Keppele, and conditioned for the appearance of Stephen Austin, at the next Mayor’s Court for the city of Philadelphia, to answer to a charge of conspiracy &c. Plea, Nil dehet.
Read the full summary
in ERROR. UPON error to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county the case was thus: The action -was debt upon a recognisance in 2000 dollars, entered into by the defendant before alderman Keppele, and conditioned for the appearance of Stephen Austin, at the next Mayor’s Court for the city of Philadelphia, to answer to a charge of conspiracy &c. Plea, Nil dehet. At the trial in the Common Pleas, the attorney for the commonwealth gave in evidence the doequet of alderman Keppele, in which was entered the following memorandum. Commonwealth v. Stephen Austin and Eliza Burns* Sur charge founded on…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
after stating the bill of exceptions, delivered his opinion as follows:
There is no doubt but the alderman had power to take the recognisance, nor has any question been made on that point. The objections are, that the evidence given to the jury was not a recognisance, but only a loose note, by which it did not appear that the defendant was bound to the com*434monwealth, or bound at all, and that it was not signed by the alderman. A recognisance is a debt of record, entered into , ,. , _ before some court, judge, or magistrate, having authority to take the same. By the act for…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People v. KaneNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Commonwealth v. FinneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
- Commonwealth v. Gardner, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County1952
- Commonwealth v. RossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821