Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Whart. 279

Drew v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 6, 1836

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1836-02-06

In the Mayor’s Court for the City of Philadelphia, Charles Drew, Elijah Drew, and Elisha Drew were indicted, for that they the said Charles Drew, Elijah Drew and Elisha Drew, “ on the 9th day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1833, at the city aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, with force and arms, feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit a certain check on The Philadelphia Bank, purporting to be drawn by Joseph G. Parke & Co. for the…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1836-02-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1933

4 state decisions

1018361840185018601870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1By the eleventh section of the act of 1824, the forging of a bank check such as this, is declared to be a felony punishable with fine and imprisonment at solitary labour for not less than one year nor more than ten years. How far has this been altered by the act of 1829? -Bv the fourth section of that .act, it is declared that instead of the punishment theretofore prescribed, imprisonment at solitary labour for a period not less than one year, nor more than seven, shall be inflicted for the first offence, and the like imprisonment, not exceeding ten years, for the second. Did the question stand on this, it would be easy to show that the character and class of an offence is not altered by a modification of the punishment. But the sixth section declares, that “ all definitions and descriptions of crimes; n\\fines, forfeitures, penalties, and incapacities the restitution of property or payment of the value; and every other matter not particularly mentioned; shall remain as theretofore. Certainly the definition and description of a crime have respect to its essence and class, when it induces, as felony does, a civil disability, by incapacitating a party convict to be a witness. It is clear, therefore, that it was not the intention of the legislature to reduce the type of the offence to a misdemeanor; and it is needless to say that the fine is not abolished.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/1/whart/279 · .json · Public domain