Commonwealth v. Hurd
Commonwealth v. Hurd
Opinion of the Court
This case came here under a special allocatur granted by one of the justices of this court. No question was raised as to whether, within the meaning of section 7, clause (a) of the Superior Court act of 1895, the case is one “involving the right to a public office,” and it was accordingly argued and submitted to us on its supposed merits. Unfortunately for the appellant, the record discloses no ground on which the judgment of the court of quarter sessions can be reversed.
The first three specifications are to the action of the court in denying defendant’s motion to quash the indictment, and in overruling his reasons in support thereof. There appears to be nothing in either of these specifications that would have justified any other course of action. This is so clearly shown in the opinion of the learned judge that further discussion is unnecessary. The indictment is framed under the act of April 15, 1834, which declares : “ If any county commissioner shall be
For reasons given at length by the learned judge, in his opinion denying the motion for a new trial, there is no merit in the 4th specification.
The case was correctly tried, and the verdict of the jury, upon which judgment was entered, was fully warranted by the evidence before them.
The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed; and, to the end that the same may be fully executed, it is ordered that the record be remitted to the court below.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Commonwealth v. John Hurd
- Cited By
- 16 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- The term “presentment” means the report of the grand jury of an offense, whether founded on their own knowledge or on testimony heard by them. Criminal law — Bill of rights — Practice, Q. S. — Misdemeanor in office-Information — Indictment. The court of quarter sessions may call to the attention of the grand jury a charge that a county commissioner has been concerned in public contracts, and if the grand jury reports that sufficient evidence was adduced before them to support the charge, the court may direct the district attorney to prepare and submit an indictment. It seems that under section 10 of the bill of rights of the constitution of Pennsylvania which provides that “ No person shall for any indictable offense be proceeded against criminally by information .... except for oppression or misdemeanor in office,” criminal proceedings .may be instituted by information against a county commissioner who has been concerned in public contracts. Criminal law— Grand jury — Presentment. Criminal law — County commissioners — Public contracts — Indictment— Act of April 15, 1834. An indictment under the act of April 15.1834, see. 43, P. L. 537, charging two count}' commissioners with being concerned in public contracts will not be quashed because it avers that the public contracts in question were made not- under the authority of the commissioners as a board, but under the authority of the two defendants acting as county commissioners. Indictment — Public officers — Appeal from auditor's report. An indictment against county commissioners for being concerned in public contracts will not be quashed because of the pending of an appeal by the commissioners from the report of the county auditors surcharging them with the amount averred in the indictment to have been fraudulently obtained by them. Criminal law — New trial — Misconduct of juror — Statement by juror. It is no ground for granting a new trial in a criminal case that a juror during the progress of the trial made a casual statement about the case, without harmful tendency, which showed rather a tendency to gossip, than a prejudice against the prisoner.