Case Name: Respublica against James Burns, esq.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1794-04
Citations: 1 Yeates 370
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Respublica against James Burns, esq.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 1
Pages: 369–370

Head Matter:
*Respublica against James Burns, esq.
Information lies against a justice of the peace, for taking the recognizance of a person charged with an assault and battery, himself in 30s. and two sureties in 15s. each.
One John Montgomery, jun. attorney at law, of Carlisle, had been indicted in Mifflin county, for an assault and battery under very aggravated circumstances, and escaped into Maryland. The governor of this state had demanded him from the executive authority of Maryland, uiider the 4th article of the constitution of the United States, and he was sent up accordingly to Mifflin county. He appeared before the defendant, a justice of the peace of the said county, and entered before him into recognizance, himself in the sum of 30s. and two sureties in 15s. each, conditioned for his appearance at the then next Mifflin Quarter Sessions of the peace, to answer the indictment and abide the judgment of the court in the premises. And Burns gave Montgomery a certificate, that he had entered into recognizance with sufficient sureties to appear and answer: whereupon Montgomery was discharged.
A rule had been granted to shew cause why an information should not be filed against the defendant, for this misdemeanor.
Mr. Morgan now shewed cause and contended, that the defendant had not been influenced by corrupt motives. He read the affidavits of George Wilson and John Culbertson, the two sureties of Montgomery, to prove it. The former swore, that Montgomery had told Burns, he had accommodated the dispute, and that a small sum would be sufficient to take the. recognizance in. Burns at first hesitated, but afterwards agreed to take a small sum; and there did not appear to the witness any collusion between Burns and Montgomery. The latter swore nearly the same things, except that he heard nothing said about the dispute being accommodated. Burns remarked at the time, that the bail was small, but he supposed it would make no odds.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
We cannot dispense with a public examination of the present charge, under the circumstances which appear before us. It is of the utmost consequence to society, thatothe proceedings of magistrates should appear pure i-n the eyes of the world. Their intentions should not admit of suspicion. The defendant has not purged himself on oath. If the matter orginally in variance had been compromised, there was no necessity to take a recognizance. Burns could not have been so ignorant as not to have known, that the taking of recognizances in such sums, was a reproach to the public justice of the coun*try, on a criminal charge. The certificate that Montgomery had entered into recognizance with sufficient securities, proves that he knew he was acting wrong in his office. Let him exculpate himself on a public trial. His character as a justice of the peace demands it.
The rule for granting an information must be made absolute.