Jillard v. The Commonwealth

Decision Date01 January 1856
Citation26 Pa. 169
PartiesJillard versus The Commonwealth.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Dimmick, Crane, and Waller, for plaintiff in error.—A count which charges two distinct offences, is bad: Whart. A. Cr. L. 96-7; Arch. C. P. 53; 1 Richardson 260; 4 Humph. 25; 8 Blackf. 151; and although the second offence is defectively charged, it cannot be rejected as surplusage: 11 Mass. Rep. 93. At common law grand jurors have no right to swear witnesses: Ch. C. Law 321: and in Pennsylvania only those whose names have been endorsed upon the bill by the attorney-general: Wh. Cr. Law 123; Act 5th April, 1826. See Purd. Dig. 475, § 85.

Unless the witnesses are regularly sworn, the bill will be quashed: United States v. Coolidge, 2 Gallison 364; Wh. A. Cr. Law 124; Low's Case, 4 Green. 439.

Minor and G. G. Waller, for the Commonwealth.—The court will not arrest the judgment, either for duplicity or irregularity in summoning or procedure of the grand jury: Wh. Cr. L. 618. If the grand jury find a bill upon incompetent testimony, and the defendant is afterwards convicted, the conviction cannot be impeached on that ground: 1 Ch. Cr. L. 320; Wh. Cr. L. 98; 3 Hill's S. C. R. 1; 20 Pick. 356; 1 Pa. Rep. 105.

It is not essential that the names of the witnesses should be upon the bill: 9 Pick. 498; 4 M. & S. 208-9; 1 Ch. Cr. Law 318.

There is no duplicity. In a statutory offence it is not necessary to follow the exact words; substantial accuracy is all that is required, and certainty to a reasonable intent: 3 Yeates 451; U. S. 2 Gall. 437; 3 Halst. Rep. 299; 1 Vermt. 331; 1 Ch. Cr. L. 280; 3 Pick. 281; 12 Wend. 425; Addis. R. 171-173.

The opinion of the court was delivered by WOODWARD, J.

The defendant pleaded specially to the indictment that certain witnesses had been sworn and examined by the foreman of the grand jury whose names the district attorney had not marked upon the indictment, to which plea the Commonwealth demurred, and judgment was thereupon rendered that the defendant plead over.

The irregularity of the grand jury was not pleadable in bar of the indictment. At most it was ground only for a motion to quash. If pleadable, it was traversable, and it would be a novelty in criminal trials to set a traverse jury summoned only to try the accused, to inquiring whether the indictment had been found with a due regard to prescribed forms. The judgment on the demurrer was right.

The defendant then pleaded the general issue, and was convicted and sentenced; and it is now objected to the record that the indictment is void by reason of duplicity in charging several offences in one count.

The 2d section of the Act of 14th April, 1855, on which the indictment is framed, defines two offences, and the indictment charges one of them. That the words "give" and "given," employed by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Havrilla
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • February 26, 1909
    ...after they are stricken out: 1 Bishop's Cr. Law, sec. 819; Wharton's Cr. Evidence (9th ed.), sec. 138; 2 Russell on Crimes, 746; Jillard v. Com., 26 Pa. 169. The averment that defendant was guilty of willful fraud may be discharged from the count without destroying it, for a distinct offens......
  • Commonwealth v. Sunderlin
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • June 30, 1906
    ...Commonwealth v. Wilson et al., 6 Kulp, 40; Commonwealth v. Price, 4 Kulp, 289; Commonwealth v. Frescoln, 11 Lanc. L.Rev. 161; Jillard v. Commonwealth, 26 Pa. 169; Commonwealth v. Schall et al., 5 York, A defendant has the right to have the indictment certainly and precisely in the descripti......
  • Parks v. State
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • January 6, 1887
    ...C. 12 N. W. Rep. 665. See, also, U. S. v. Southmayd, 6 Biss. 321;Reg. v. Lord Gordon, 2 Doug. 591; Reg. v. Frost, 9 Car. & P. 151; Jillard v. Com., 26 Pa. 169;Com. v. Knapp, 9 Pick. 495. Criminal statutes should be strictly construed, and nothing should be taken by intendment or implication......
  • Commonwealth v. Baker
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • December 14, 1925
    ... ... charge a sale to Washington. It is general in its terms and ... is in a form approved for nearly two centuries in this ... jurisdiction when offenses of this general character are the ... subject of indictment: Commonwealth v. Baird, 4 ... Serge. & Rawle 141; Jillard v. Commonwealth, 26 Pa ... 169; Genkinger v. Commonwealth, 32 Pa. 99. Under ... such an indictment sales to more than one person may be shown ... in support of the complaint. It will be further noticed that ... the indictment is general and, therefore, ... [86 Pa.Super. 378] ... includes ... ...
  • 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