Commonwealth v. Gipner

12 A. 306, 118 Pa. 379, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 401
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 3, 1888
DocketNo. 253
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 12 A. 306 (Commonwealth v. Gipner) 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. Gipner, 12 A. 306, 118 Pa. 379, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 401 (Pa. 1888).

Opinion

Opinion,

Mr. Justice Williams :

The defendant in error was arrested on the second day of July, 1887, for a violation of the Sunday laws by the sale of tobacco and cigars at his store in the city of Pittsburgh. On his arrest he went before a magistrate and proposed to pay the fine and costs, saying he might as well pay at one time as another. The magistrate being at the time unable to ascertain the amount of the costs declined the offer. The case was finally heard on the 12th July, and the defendant convicted. Immediately after his conviction, without waiting for the issuing of any writ, and without threat or request from the magistrate or any other person, the defendant voluntarily paid the fine and costs and the proceeding was at an end. Three days afterwards he obtained a writ of certiorari, and brought the record of his conviction into the Common Pleas for examination. That court reversed the proceedings before the magistrate and awarded a writ of restitution for the fine and costs paid by the defendant.

What reasons moved the court to this action we are unable to determine, as no opinion whatever was filed. We have examined the proceedings before the magistrate and the record of conviction, and we are unable to discover any serious error or defect in them. The record of conviction is in substantial conformity to the requirements of the act of 1794, and should have been held to be sufficient in form and substance. The fact that the evidence was sent up by the magistrate did not justify the Common Pleas in an attempt at a re-trial of the case upon the merits, nor make it any part of the record. But if it had been otherwise, the case was at an end before the certiorari issued, by the voluntary ■ payment and satisfaction of the fine and costs; and the Common Pleas had no authority in the premises.

The order made upon the argument of the certiorari, reversing the proceedings before the magistrate and awarding a writ of restitution, is now reversed and set aside, and the proceedings before the magistrate are affirmed.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Clemmer
52 Pa. D. & C.2d 170 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1970)
Commonwealth v. Quinn
257 A.2d 266 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)
Commonwealth v. Wagner
16 Pa. D. & C.2d 162 (Montour County Court of Common Pleas, 1957)
Commonwealth v. May
8 Pa. D. & C.2d 8 (Delaware County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1956)
Commonwealth v. Deisroth
1 Pa. D. & C.2d 504 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1954)
Commonwealth v. Williamson
84 Pa. D. & C. 342 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1952)
Commonwealth v. Strickland
71 Pa. D. & C. 104 (Bradford County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Duncan v. State
58 A.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1948)
Commonwealth v. Kramer
58 A.2d 193 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Campbell v. Commonwealth
43 Pa. D. & C. 123 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1941)
Commonwealth v. Samuel
34 Pa. D. & C. 640 (Cambria County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1938)
Commonwealth v. Armour & Co.
30 Pa. D. & C. 374 (Philadelphia County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1937)
Commonwealth v. Nescoda
20 Pa. D. & C. 643 (Schuylkill County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1934)
People v. Ruiz
42 P.R. 280 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1931)
Pueblo v. Ruiz
42 P.R. Dec. 288 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1931)
Commonwealth v. Cohen
15 Pa. D. & C. 25 (Philadelphia County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1931)
Com. of Penna. v. Benson
94 Pa. Super. 10 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Torado v. Commonwealth
9 Pa. D. & C. 314 (Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)
Reap's Appeal
88 Pa. Super. 147 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
People v. Bandy
239 Ill. App. 273 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A. 306, 118 Pa. 379, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-gipner-pa-1888.