Case Name: Spalding against Saxton
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1837-07
Citations: 6 Watts 338
Docket Number: 
Parties: Spalding against Saxton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Volume: 6
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
Spalding against Saxton.
A copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the governor of Pennsylvania, hy which it appears that a pardon had heon granted to one convicted of a crime, is not evidence of the fact that a pardon was granted. The warrant itself should be produced, or its loss accounted for.
ERROR to Bradford comity.
This was an action by Benjamin Saxton against William P. Spalding, to recover the amount of a book account. The plaintiff was called to prove his book of original entries. The defendant objected to his being sworn, and gave in evidence the record of his conviction of burglary.
The plaintiff then offered in evidence, a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the governor, by which it appeared that the plaintiff had been pardoned before the expiration of his sentence, which was duly certified by the secretary of the commonwealth to be truly copied.
The defendant objected to the evidence, on the ground that the pardon itself was the only legal evidence of the fact; but the court overruled the objection and the plaintiff was admitted to testify.
Williston, for plaintiff in error,
cited 2 Stark. Ev. 722.
Ehoett, contra,
cited 2d Art. of Con. secs. 9 and 15; Purd. Dig. 286; Act of 1823, sect. 1; Ibid. 360.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The pardon itself should have been produced, or its loss accounted for. The English law requires it to be authenticated with the great seal, because the king's sign manual or privy seal maybe retracted. Gully's Case, Leach 116; Rex v. Warwick, 5 St. Tr. 166, and Rex v. Miller, 2 Bl. Rep. 797, are in point. Are the governor's minutes less revocable ?• The recital in the extract that the pardon was granted, amounts but to a present decision in favour of the convict's prayer, and an order to let the warrant issue; but till it was actually issued, it might be recalled. The minute, therefore, was not primary evidence of a pardon, though it might be competent if the warrant were shown to be lost or destroyed.
Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.