Gorman v. Commonwealth

Citations

• 124 Pa. 536
• 17 A. 26
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1058

Syllabus

<p>(a) An indictment on trial contained two counts, the first charging fornication and bastardy, the second adultery; and the commonwealth proved that the defendant was a married man and had had connection with a single woman, and the birth of a child therefrom.</p> <p>(b) The commonwealth was then granted leave to strike from the indictment the charge of fornication, “ and to amend the second count so as to include the charge of bastardy in accordance with the evidenceand on the indictment as amended the verdict was, “guilty of adultery and bastardy.”</p> <p>1. In such case, nothing was added to or altered in the indictment, other than to withdraw the formal charge of fornication and to unite the charge of bastardy, as specifically charged and proven, with that of adultery.</p> <p>2. Whether the charge be fornication and bastardy, adultery, or seduction, the essential fact which constitutes the offence is fornication, these said offences existing by reason of the several peculiar aggravations accompanying the commission of the fornication.</p> <p>3. A count for adultery, drawn according to established precedents recognized by the courts prior to the crimes act, will be adjudged sufficient though not pursuing the language of § 36, act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 392.</p> <p>4. As it was charged that the defendant, a married man, did commit adultery with the prosecutrix and a bastard child upon her body did beget, the omission of the name of defendant’s wife, even if necessary, was but a matter of form to be set up before the jury was sworn, and not afterward.</p> <p>5. As the offence of fornication, or adultery, might be established though a child was not begotten, the birth of the child in consequence thereof was but proof of the bastardy, and unnecessary to be averred in the indictment, to sustain the judgment on the verdict.</p>