Commonwealth v. Osler

Citations

• 34 Pa. Super. 138
• 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 95

Syllabus

<p>Sheriffs — Wrongful return — Judgment on* bond — Liquor law — Appeals — Supersedeas.</p> <p>Where the district attorney enters up the bond of a liquor dealer after the latter has been convicted of violating the liquor laws, and issues execution under which levy is made upon the property of the principal of the bond, and thereafter the sheriff on being informed by the attorney for the principal, who is also county solicitor, that an appeal had been taken, and on the advice of such attorney, returns the writ without further execution, and subsequently the property of the principal is either sold under another writ, or eloigned from the county, the sheriff will be liable to the bondsmen of the liquor dealer, after the affirmance of the conviction, and after they have been compelled to pay the fine by reason of the failure to find assets of the principal.</p> <p>In such a case the sheriff was bound to look to his writ and follow its direction. If he desired protection, he should have gone into the court of common pleas from whence the writ issued, and asked for a proper order under the circumstances. The order of supersedeas in the quarter sessions had no effect on the execution issued out of the common pleas.</p> <p>The fact that the county had a beneficial interest in the fund when ultimately secured, did not give the solicitor of the county control over the writ in opposition to the district attorney who issued it, and whose name was indorsed on it as counsel for the plaintiff.</p> <p>The sheriff's wrongful withdrawal from a levy embracing all the defendant's goods, is prima facie evidence that such goods were of value sufficient to pay plaintiff's debt.</p>