Commonwealth v. Davies

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Davies

1 Binn. 97, 1804 Pa. LEXIS 41

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 12, 1804

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Binn. 97 (Commonwealth v. Davies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Davies, 1 Binn. 97, 1804 Pa. LEXIS 41 (Pa. 1804).

Pincite

Opinion

ShiRpen C. J.

There is abundantly more reason for a power in the court to moderate or remit a forfeiture of this kind than [105]*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.

I 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ShiRpen C. J.

There is abundantly more reason for a power in the court to moderate or remit a forfeiture of this kind than [105]*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.

I 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Binn. 97, 1804 Pa. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-davies-pa-1804.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack