Case Name: The Commonwealth against Long keeper of the Gaol
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1813-04-03
Citations: 5 Binn. 489
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commonwealth against Long keeper of the Gaol.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Binney)
Volume: 5
Pages: 489–490

Head Matter:
The Commonwealth against Long keeper of the Gaol.
Philadelphia, Saturday, April 3.
Persons sen-to pay a fine not costs lire entitled to a dis-both as to fine having remained in confinement for the beyond'life term adjudged sonmentf But*" neither fine nor the defendant^ £Ity* **
THIS was a^'habeas corpus to bring up the bodies of several prisoners, who, as it appeared by the return, were confined in the common gaol, under sentence by the Quarter Sessions} to be imprisoned a certain time, to pay fine, which in each case was under five pounds, and to pay the costs of prosecution. They had all remained in confinement thirty days after the term adjudged for their imprisonment, but had not paid either the fine, or the costs.
The question was, whether they were entitled to a discharge under the fourth section of the act of the 27th °f March 1789, which enacts “ that'every person who now is, “ or hereafter shall be, confined in any gaol within this com“monwealth, in execution or otherwise, for any debt or “ debts, sum or sums of motley, or fine or fines, forfeiture “ or forfeitures, none of which do or shall exceed the sum “ of five pounds exclusive of costs, and has or shall have “ remained so confined for the space of thirty days, shall “ be discharged from such confinement, and .not be liable to “ be again imprisoned for the same; and the sheriff, gaoler, “ or keeper of the gaol, in which such person is, or shall be “ confined as aforesaid, shall, upon application to him by the “person so confined., discharge him or her out of custody, “ if detained for suclji debt or debts, sunt or sums of money, “fine or forfeiture only, and for no other cause.” 2 Smith’s Laws 483'
Phillips for the inspectors of the prison, at whose instance. the habeas corpus was awarded.
The Attorney General (Ingersoll) for the commonwealth.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The construction of the act is this, that the prisoner is not entitled to a discharge, unless he has remained in confinement for the fine, thirty days beyond the time adjudged for imprisonment; and when he has remained such thirty days, he is entitled to a discharge both as respects the fine and the costs. But neither fine, nor costs, are remitted. If the criminal has property, his property is liable for both.
Prisoners discharged.