KING v. LUKENS, 1 U.S. 5 (1762)

U.S. Supreme Court

KING v. LUKENS , 1 U.S. 5 (1762)

1 U.S. 5 (Dall.)

The King
v.
John Lukens

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April Term, 1762

Indictment for a Nuisance. Mr. Dickenson, for the Defendant, moved that a Prosecutor should be indorsed on the Indictment, agreeably to the Act of Assembly,* before the Defendant should be put to plead. Mr. Chew, Attorney General, urged that such a Construction ought to be put on the Act as that public Justice may not be eluded; and that there should be no Necessity to indorse a Prosecutor, unless it be proved that there is some person active in carrying on a Prosecution; because, if it took its rise from the Grand Jury, or a Justice of the Peace, no Person could be indorsed; and Offenders of the highest Nature would escape being brought to Justice.

By the Court. It often happens that all the Witnesses necessary to support a public Prosecution are brought unwillingly to give Evidence; and the Act could never intend there should be a Prosecutor

[ King v. Lukens 1 U.S. 5 (1762)

indorsed, unless there was really a Prosecutor existing, for the Words in the Act are, the Prosecutor. And as no Person in the present Case is proved to be active in carrying on the Prosecution, the Defendant must plead to the Indictment without any Indorsement.

It was then moved, that the Defendant himself might be sworn to prove the Person prosecuting; but denied by the Court, who said it must be proved by indifferent Witnesses.

Footnotes

[Footnote *] 4. Ann. c. 37. see 1 State 1 vers 49.




U.S. Supreme Court

KING v. LUKENS , 1 U.S. 5 (1762)

1 U.S. 5 (Dall.)

The King
v.
John Lukens

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April Term, 1762

Indictment for a Nuisance. Mr. Dickenson, for the Defendant, moved that a Prosecutor should be indorsed on the Indictment, agreeably to the Act of Assembly,* before the Defendant should be put to plead. Mr. Chew, Attorney General, urged that such a Construction ought to be put on the Act as that public Justice may not be eluded; and that there should be no Necessity to indorse a Prosecutor, unless it be proved that there is some person active in carrying on a Prosecution; because, if it took its rise from the Grand Jury, or a Justice of the Peace, no Person could be indorsed; and Offenders of the highest Nature would escape being brought to Justice.

By the Court. It often happens that all the Witnesses necessary to support a public Prosecution are brought unwillingly to give Evidence; and the Act could never intend there should be a Prosecutor

[ King v. Lukens 1 U.S. 5 (1762)

indorsed, unless there was really a Prosecutor existing, for the Words in the Act are, the Prosecutor. And as no Person in the present Case is proved to be active in carrying on the Prosecution, the Defendant must plead to the Indictment without any Indorsement.

It was then moved, that the Defendant himself might be sworn to prove the Person prosecuting; but denied by the Court, who said it must be proved by indifferent Witnesses.

Footnotes

[Footnote *] 4. Ann. c. 37. see 1 State 1 vers 49.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.