Commonwealth v. Morihan
Commonwealth v. Morihan
Opinion of the Court
1. There is no sufficient ground for sustaining the exception to the ruling of the court that, at the time of the alleged escape, Reagan was lawfully and rightfully in the custody of the constable, under and by virtue of the original warrant, as set forth in the indictment. The evidence shows that the party was duly arrested thereon and brought before the magistrate for trial; that the trial was postponed for two days, at which time the party again appeared and was surrendered for trial, and further proceedings; and although a judgment had been pronounced in the case orally, the party had not been committed in pursuance thereof, but was still in the custody of the constable who had arrested him on the warrant, and had been in attendance as the sole officer having care of the prisoner. Being thus in fact in custody of the constable under no other
2. The supposed informality in the complaint, and in the sentence as orally announced, but under which no commitment had taken place, if it exists, furnishes no justification to the defendant for aiding and assisting Reagan to escape from the custody of the constable. Objections of that character are to be taken in some other form than by a forcible escape from the custody of the officer. Further; the warrant under which the party was arrested and detained was unexceptionable in its form. Exceptions overruled.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Commonwealth v. Matthew Morihan
- Status
- Published