Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Binn. 97

Commonwealth v. Davies

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 12, 1804

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1804-09-12

THE defendants in August 1797 became severally bound to the commonwealth before the Chief Justice of this court in a recognisance in 1000 dolls, conditioned for the good behaviour of William C'obbett until the next Oyer and Terminer to be holden by the justices of this court for the city ~nd county d Philadelphia.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1804-09-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1831

3 state decisions

101804181018201830decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ShiRpen C. J.

¶1There is abundantly more reason for a power in the court to moderate or remit a forfeiture of this kind than *105hi those cases which come expressly within the law; for, as it was argued upon the trial, if a publication in the newspaper may be a breach, and upon such a breach the whole recognisanee is forfeited, every justice of the peace may indirectly put a restraint upon the press. I certainly told the jury that we had an act of Assembly by which we might prevent the injury; and I was probably misled by recollecting that in declaring upon such a recognisance I always stated that it was filed of record in the court, and so are the forms. But I am now persuaded from an examination of the act that I was mistaken, and that the relief is confined to forfeitures in court. It is to be regretted that it is too late to afford the parties a new trial. The relief at present lies only with the executive. The opinion of the court is that the petitions must be dismissed.

Smith J.

¶2I do not go merely by recollection in stating that I did say upon the trial I had doubts as to its not being a restraint upon the press; and then the Chief Justice said we had power by the act to prevent injury. It was clearly a mistake, for the act does not extend to such' a forfeiture.

Per Curiam. Petitions dismissed.
/1/binn/97 · .json · Public domain