Case Name: The Commonwealth against Pennock
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1817-05-20
Citations: 3 Serg. & Rawl. 199
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commonwealth against Pennock.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 3
Pages: 199–199

Head Matter:
The Commonwealth against Pennock.
Tuesday, May 20.
In an indictment for burglary, the word mansion-house, is a good description of the premises. It is noterror, that the court, in their sentence for burglary, have •included the forfeiture of property imposed by law.
Writs of error ought not to be allowed in criminal cases, merely tb reverse a judgment, where the merits have been fairly tried, and the defendant has suffered no wrong by the judgment
Indictment.
BUCHANAN, for the defendant,
moved for a writ of error upon an indictment and sentence or the defendant for burglary, on the ground that the indictment stated the breaking and entering to be into a mansion house, and not a dwelling house. And also that the Court made it a part of their Sentence, that the defendant’s goods and chattels should be forfeited, and that his lands and tenements should be forfeited for life.

Opinion:
The Court
refused to grant a writ of error. They were of opinion, that the house was sufficiently described as a dwelling house by the word mansion. And as to the forfeiture, although the judgment would have been better without it, yet the defendant suffered no injury by it; as the law would have implied the forfeiture, though not part of the judgment. Writs of error ought not to be allowed merely for the sake of reversing a judgment, where the merits have been fairly tried, and the defendant has suffered no wrong by the judgment.
Motion denied.