Case Name: The Commonwealth ex relatione Norton and others against Deacon
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1822-04-07
Citations: 8 Serg. & Rawle 72
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commonwealth ex relatione Norton and others against Deacon.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 8
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
The Commonwealth ex relatione Norton and others against Deacon.
This Court will not disnlmrge prison. leas corpus, diotmentTs" pending against them, on which they committed by aCourthaving risdietion- mi the ground that they have been tried on menqand acquitted on some ofthe counts, but no verdict given on the others. The remedy, judgmentE°US should be rendered, is by writ of error.
THIS was a habeas corpus directed to the defendant, the keeper of the prison of Philadelphia, to bring up the bodies of Norton, Roosewelt and Eddy. By the return it appeared, that the defendants were indicted for forgery, and tried in the Mayor’s Court of- the city of Philadelphia. . ..... ,, . Phere were sixteen counts m the indictment, and-the jury ^ound the defendants not guilty on nine counts, and said no. thing as to the residue. The Mayor’s Court afterwards committed the defendants to take their trial on the other seven counts,
Phillips, for the prisoners,- insisted,
that an acquittal on the nine counts, was an acquittal on the whole indictment, and that .they could not be tried again,
Duncan J.
You need not use ány argument to prove that the plaintiffs cannot be tried again on this indictment,
Duane, for the Commonwealth, then contended,
that if there were any error, it should be brought before the Court on a writ of error.
P. A. Browne, for the prisoners, urged,
that under the circumstances, they were entitled to a discharge. They had been detained in prison more than two Courts.

Opinion:
By the Court.
It appears that Rosewelt and Eddy are in custody by order of the Mayor's Court, and that an indictment against them is still 'depending in that Court. No judgment has been given on the verdict, nor do we know what judgment will be given. But we know, that the Mayor's Court has jurisdiction over the offences with which the prisoners are charged, and if they should give an erroneous judgment, remedy may be had by writ of error, which will bring the case properly before us. We are of opinion, that it would be improper to discharge the prisoners under the present circumstances, and therefore they are remanded to the custody of the keeper of the prison.
Prisoners remanded.