Case Name: Com. ex rel. Keller v. Roberts
Court: Philadelphia Court of Nisi Prius
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1847-04
Citations: 1 Brightly 109
Docket Number: 
Parties: Com. ex rel. Keller v. Roberts.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the judges of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, in the court of nisi prius
Volume: 1
Pages: 109–110

Head Matter:
Com. ex rel. Keller v. Roberts.
[April, 1847.]
The legislature can compel witnesses to answer questions, the answers to which may not show them to be criminal, but may involve them in shame and reproach: therefore, a witness may be compelled to answer, under the act of 16th March, 1847, whether he has purchased lottery tickets from the defendant.
This was a habeas corpus, directed to Edward Roberts, a constable. It appeared that one Edward Parker had been charged, before Alderman Brazer, with the offence of selling lottery tickets; on the hearing of which case the relator, Peter Keller, was called as a witness. The' following question was asked him: — “ Did you ever purchase any lottery tickets from the defendant ?” — which he refused to ’answer, alleging that his answer to the question would involve him in shame and reproach. Whereupon, the aider-man committed him until he should fully answer.
The act of 16th March, 1847, [Pamph.p. 476,) provides that “the purchaser of any such lottery ticket shall not be held liable to punishment by this or any other law of the state, but shall be a competent witness in the cause P
Doran, for the relator, argued,
— 1. That the act of assembly does not relieve the purchasers of tickets from their liability for the purcháse of any other ticket than that which forms the subject of the indictment. That the acts of 1762 and 1833, making the sale or purchase of tickets a crime, was still in force; and if a person testified that he bought any other ticket than that which forms the subject of the indictment, he could be punished therefor. 2. That the answer might involve him in shame and reproach.
Champneys, attorney general,
examined at length the doctrine of privilege as laid down by the English and American authorities.

Opinion:
Rogers, J.
— The constitution provides that no person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself. If the question were, as to whether he had committed murder, felony, or other crimes against the law of nature, he would be protected. But the legislature can compel witnesses to answer questions, the answers to which may not show them to be criminal, but may involve them in shame and reproach. The prohibition against the sale of lottery tickets is a statutory offence only. The purchase and sale of them was formerly recognised by our laws, and is still sanctioned in many states of the union. Apart from the legislative prohibition, founded in public policy, no disgrace could be attached to those who buy or sell them. If the relator were fraudulently insolvent, in consequence of the purchase of lottery tickets, and he were asked if such was not the cause of his failure, he could not be compelled to answer. The act of assembly applies to such a case as the present: the prisoner is, therefore, remanded, until the question is answered. Relator remanded.
Mr. Keller gave security for his future appearance before the alderman, to answer the question.