Pennsylvania v. Gillespie
1 Add. 267
Opinion
For taking down an advertisement of a sale of property for private use, an action would, in my opinion, lie for contingent damages. It seems to follow, therefore, that, when the sale is under a public law, for public use, an indictment should lie for the injury done to the public.
He was convicted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pennsylvania v. Gillespie, 1 Add. 267 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1795).
1 Add. 267 (Pennsylvania v. Gillespie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.