Commonwealth v. Smith
Citations
- 185 Pa. 553
- 40 A. 73
- 1898 Pa. LEXIS 753
Syllabus
<p>Criminal law — Removal of oases to Supreme Court — Certiorari—Constitution of 1874 — Act of March 18, 1875.</p> <p>The authority oí the Supreme Court to remove causes by certiorari from the court of oyer ami terminer or quarter sessions has not been taken away by the constitution of 1874, nor has it been affected by the Act of March 18, 1875, P. L. 80, relating to change of venue.</p> <p>The Supreme Court will not remove by certiorari from the quarter sessions an indictment for bribing a city councilman, where the ground for removal is alleged to be the excited condition of the public mind by reason of inflammatory articles in newspapers, expressions of the district attorney that he anticipated jury fixing, the offering of a reward by a political organization for the conviction of any one for bribing a jury or attempting to do so, and the illegal and irregular course of two judges sitting as committing magistrates in investigating the bribery charges connected with that in the indictment where it appears that two terms have elapsed since the application for the removal was made, and the public excitement about the case has died out.</p> <p>Jurisdiction — Judges—Investigation of bribery charges.</p> <p>A judge of the quarter sessions, sitting as a committing magistrate or justice of the peace, has no jurisdiction to conduct an investigation of general charges of bribery in connection with city council men where there is no definite charge against any specified person, and no affidavit, as provided by the constitution. The legal tribunal for inquiry and investigation, based on rumor, or common report, or general charges, is the grand jury.</p> <p>In a public examination of charges of bribery of city councilmen, conducted by a judge of the quarter sessions sitting as a committing magistrate and by the district attorney, it is illegal to force from one of the suspected parties, by solemn adjurations and threatening manner, admissions tending to incriminate himself.</
Judges: Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterbett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Smith v. GallagherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1962-10-26· cited 59×
- Duquesne City v. FinckeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1920-12-31· cited 30×
- Twenty-Eighth Congressional District NominationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1920-12-31· cited 19×
- Hammers v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1959-04-01· cited 18×
- Commonwealth v. LongSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1923-01-03· cited 16×
- United States v. HandyM.D. Pennsylvania· 1955-06-09· cited 14×
- Pittsburgh v. PierceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1918-07-10· cited 9×
- Commonwealth v. State TreasurerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1923-03-02· cited 9×
- Com. of Pa. Ex Rel. Fraley v. Rotan, Dist. Atty.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1923-12-11· cited 8×
- Commonwealth v. RonemusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1903-04-27· cited 5×
- Commonwealth v. BaneWashington County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1940-11-25· cited 4×
- Commonwealth v. LewisLuzerne County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1934-04-04
- Times Publishing Co. v. FlatleyErie County Court Common Pleas· 1952-07-05
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.