Case Name: HIND v. THOMPSON
Court: Philadelphia District Court
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1839-10-26
Citations: 2 Miles 345
Docket Number: 
Parties: HIND v. THOMPSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases determined in the district court for the city and county of Philadelphia
Volume: 2
Pages: 345–346

Head Matter:
HIND v. THOMPSON.
October 26, 1839.
Rule to show cause why defendant should not he discharged on common bail.
The court will not discharge a defendant on common bail, who has been in prison on a capias ad respondendum, for more than a year, on the ground that the plaintiff has not declared.
IN this case Markland, for the defendant,
moved that the defendant be discharged on common bail, he having been arrested on a capias ad respondendum, and having been in prison under it more than a year, the plaintiff having filed no declaration. The court granted a rule to show cause, on the hearing of which, defendant’s counsel said that the plaintiff by not having filed a de- (iteration within a year after the return of the writ, was out of court. He cited l Sell. Pr. 221; 2 T. R. 112: 3 T. R. 123; 5 T. R. 35.
J. M. Scott, contra.

Opinion:
The Court
said that there was no rule of this court, requiring the plaintiff to file a declaration within a year, although such a rule had existed in some other courts of this commonwealth; nor had they adopted the practice, in this respect, of some of the English courts. No hardship exists as to the defendant, because he may have, by the rules of this court, a short rule on the plaintiff to declare, and have either a trial or a nonsuit.
Rule discharged.