Commonwealth v. Long

• Decision Date: 03 April 1813
• Citation: 5 Binn. 489
• Parties: The Commonwealth v. LONG keeper of the Gaol.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

5 Binn. 489

The Commonwealth v. LONG keeper of the Gaol.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 3, 1813

Persons sentenced to imprisonment, and to pay a fine not more than 5 l., with costs, are entitled to a discharge from imprisonment, both as to fine and costs, after having remained in confinement for the fine, thirty days beyond the term adjudged for their imprisonment. But neither fine nor costs are remitted thereby. If the defendant has property, it is liable.

THIS was a habeas corpus to bring up the bodies of several prisoners, who, as it appeared by the return, were confined in the common gaol, under sentence by the Quarter Sessions, to be imprisoned a certain time, to pay a fine which in each case was under five pounds, and to pay the costs of prosecution. They had all remained in confinement thirty days after the term adjudged for their imprisonment but had not paid either the fine, or the costs.

The question was, whether they were entitled to a discharge under the fourth section of the act of the 27th of March 1789, which enacts " that every person who now is, or hereafter shall be, confined in any gaol within this commonwealth, in execution or otherwise, for any debt or debts, sum or sums of money, or fine or fines, forfeiture or forfeitures, none of which do or shall exceed the sum of five pounds exclusive of costs, and has or shall have remained so confined for the space of thirty days shall be discharged from such confinement, and not be liable to be again imprisoned for the same; and the sheriff, gaoler, or keeper of the gaol, in which such person is, or shall be confined as aforesaid, shall, upon application to him by the person so confined, discharge him or her out of custody, if detained for such debt or debts, sum or sums of money, fine or forfeiture only, and for no other cause. " 2 Smith's Laws 483.

Phillips for the inspectors of the prison, at whose instance the habeas corpus was awarded.

The Attorney General (Ingersoll ) for the commonwealth.

PER CURIAM.

The construction of the act is this, that the prisoner is not entitled to a discharge, unless he has remained in confinement for the fine, thirty days beyond the time adjudged for imprisonment; and when he has remained such thirty days, he is entitled to a discharge both as respects the fine and the costs. But neither fine, nor costs are remitted. If the criminal has property, his property is liable for both.

...