Commonwealth v. Ahl

Decision Date22 May 1862
Citation43 Pa. 53
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court
PartiesCommonwealth <I>versus</I> Ahl.

We doubt not that the written opinion of the learned judge below is quite sufficient to justify his rejection of parol evidence that the pardon was obtained by a fraud upon the governor. We do not judge that question in this case, because, in criminal cases, it cannot come before us in regular form by bill of exceptions. Nor do we review the remission of the recognisance, because that question cannot be brought up in this form, the sureties being no parties to this writ of error.

We need not say whether the Quarter Sessions may or may not disregard a pardon that bears on its face the evidence that it was procured by fraud, because we think that this one does not do so. It recites defectively, but not falsely, the part performed by one of the jurors; and this is not sufficient evidence of fraud, and it is all that is relied on.

The pardon must, therefore, be respected by the court; and how, then, could there be any sentence? The costs and the lying-in expenses, and the maintenance of the child, are essential parts of the sentence in such cases, and can be imposed only where sentence can lawfully be pronounced. The pardon prevents the sentence entirely, and therefore discharges from them as well as from any other consequence of the conviction. This, too, is proved by the opinion of Judge Fisher. The judgment was therefore right, that the defendant go without day.

Judgment affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Ex parte Bess
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 12, 1929
    ...See, also, In re Edymoin, 8 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 478; 20 R. C. L. 441; Territory v. Richardson, 9 Okl. 579, 60 P. 224, 49 L. R. A. 440; Com. v. Ahl, 43 Pa. 53. indicated above, there is a well-established exception to the general rule thus stated; that is, that as fraud destroys every transac......
  • United States v. Garfinkel, 9399.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • March 4, 1948
    ...an act of grace.2 See United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150, 8 L.Ed. 640; Commonwealth v. Halloway, 44 Pa. 210, 84 Am.Dec. 431; Commonwealth v. Ahl, 43 Pa. 53. This is true whether the pardon be granted by the executive or by the legislature. No one has or can acquire a vested right to a pard......
  • Bess v. Pearman
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 12, 1929
    ...See, also, In re Edymoin, 8 How. Prac. (N. T.) 478; 20 R. C. L. 441; Territory v. Richardson, 9 Okl. 579, 60 P. 224, 49 L. R. A. 440; Com. v. Ahl, 43 Pa. 53. As indicated above, there is a well-established exception to the general rule thus stated; that is, that as fraud destroys every tran......
  • Commonwealth v. Balsamo
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • July 17, 1919
    ...having no interest in the bond, cannot maintain the action: Booz v. Engarman, 18 Pa. 263; Downing v. Commonwealth, 21 Pa. 216; Commonwealth v. Ahl, 43 Pa. 53; Commonwealth Moran, 251 Pa. 477, 58 Pa.Super. 362. Charles C. Crowell, for appellee. Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT