Commonwealth v. Werner

• Decision Date: 23 July 1897
• Docket Number: 156-1897
• Citation: 5 Pa.Super. 249
• Parties: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. William F. Werner, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

5 Pa.Super. 249

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. William F. Werner, Appellant

No. 156-1897

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 23, 1897

Argued April 28, 1897

Appeal by defendant, from sentence of Q. S. Allegheny Co.-1896, No 57, on verdict of guilty.

Indictment for fornication and bastardy. Before White, J.

It appeared from the record that information was made October 6 1896, charging the offense to have been committed October 13 1894. A preliminary hearing was waived by defendant October 14, 1896, and bail given for his appearance. On December 8 1896, the grand jury found a true bill charging fornication and bastardy on October 14, 1894. Plea, non cul et de hoc, filed by defendant December 18, 1896. Verdict of guilty. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were In overruling defendant's motion to quash. In overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment. In imposing sentence on the verdict.

Chas. B. Payne, for appellant. -- The indictment itself showing the offense charged to have been committed on October 13, 1894, and that a true bill was found thereon on December 8, 1896, more than two years intervening, the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations, and defendant's motion to quash should have prevailed.

The statute begins to run against a prosecution for fornication and bastardy from the date of the commission of the offense, and not from the date of the birth of the child: Com. v. Ruffner, 28 Pa. 259; Com. v. Bartilson, 85 Pa. 482.

The date of the finding of the bill is the time when the prosecution is begun, and not the date of the making of the information: Com. v. Haas, 57 Pa. 443.

Astuteness must not be employed to narrow or take away a defense granted by law to a party accused of crime: Com. v. Haas, 57 Pa. 443.

Penal statutes must be construed strictly: Gallagher v. Neal, 3 P. & W. 183; Bucher v. Com., 103 Pa. 528.

The opinion of the court filed is no part of the record, and therefore the reasons assigned for overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment are not before the court, and will not be considered: Com. v. Church, 1 Pa. 105; Girts v. Com., 22 Pa. 351.

J. R. McQuaide, for appellee, submitted no paper-book.

Before Rice, P. J., Willard, Wickham, Beaver, Reeder, Orlady and Smith, JJ.

OPINION

WICKHAM, J.

The indictment in this case shows, on its face, that it was found more than two years after the commission of the offense charged, and fails to allege, that the defendant had not been an inhabitant or usual resident of this state at any time before he was indicted.

It should therefore have been quashed as being fatally...