Commonwealth v. Williams

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: MCCOLLUM, J.
• Citation: 24 A. 158,149 Pa.St. 54
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. WILLIAMS.
• Decision Date: 25 April 1892

24 A. 158
149 Pa.St. 54

COMMONWEALTH
v.
WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 25, 1892.

Appeal from court of quarter sessions, Lackawanna county.

Indictment against George Williams for perjury. From a judgment quashing the indictment, the commonwealth appeals. Reversed.

The indictment sets forth: "County of Lackawanna—ss.: * * * That George Williams, * * * on the eighth day of June, A. D. 1891, at the county aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this court, with force and arms, etc., did unlawfully, willfully, corruptly, and falsely swear before Hon. Daniel W. Searle, president judge of the courts of Susquehanna county, then and there presiding," etc.

John P. Kelly, Dist. Atty., E. M. Edwards, W. S. Hulslander, and A. A. Voshurg, for the Commonwealth.

C. Comegys and E. H. House, for appellee.

MCCOLLUM, J. An indictment may he quashed for defects appearing on its face, and for matters dehors the record. In the case at bar, our information respecting the reasons which induced the court below to quash the indictment is derived exclusively from a transcript of the stenographer's notes, printed in the appellant's paper book, the correctness of which is not disputed by the appellee, and from the oral statements of counsel on the argument. From this transcript we learn that in response to a motion to quash, the learned judge said: "We shall have to quash this indictment; it is too vague and uncertain ;" and thereupon the counsel for the commonwealth move to amend it, and their motion was denied. There is nothing on the record which shows the grounds of the motion to quash, or the substance of the proposed amendment. This is certainly a very loose and unsatisfactory practice, from which confusion and injustice may often result. It is necessary for the protection of the commonwealth and the accused, and for the information of this court on appeal, that the motion to quash, with a specification of the alleged defects or irregularities on which it is based, should appear on the record. It is proper practice, therefore, to require that the motion and the reasons for it be reduced to writing and filed. But as it was conceded on the argument that the specific objection made to the indictment in the court below was that it failed to show the offense charged therein was committed in Lackawanna county, we will consider the objection, and whether it was well taken. It rests on the claim that the word "there," when used in the indictment,...