monstrous doctrine in Pennsylvania

1977Com. v. Downer, supra, 161 Pa.Super. 339, 342 , 53 A.2d 897 . . . ” In Beale v. Commonwealth, 25 Pa. 11, 22 our Supreme Court said: “The common law embodies in itself sufficient reason and common sense to reject the monstrous doctrine, that a prisoner whose guilt is established by a regular verdict is to escape punishment altogether, because the Court committed an error in passing the sentence.

1977Com. v. Downer, supra, 161 Pa.Super. 339, 342 , 53 A.2d 897 . . ." In Beale v. Commonwealth, 25 Pa. 11 , 22 our Supreme Court said: "The common law embodies in itself sufficient reason and common sense to reject the monstrous doctrine, that a prisoner whose guilt is established by a regular verdict is to escape punishment altogether, because the Court committed an error in passing the sentence.

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Johnson , 359 Pa. 287 , 59 A.2d 128 (1948) (reversing judgment of sentence imposed for manslaughter, where trial court reassembled jury to amend previously recorded but incomplete verdict); McDaniels , supra (despite recognizing trial court's "laudable" intentions, vacating not guilty verdict where trial court had previously recorded jury as deadlocked but where court later reconvened jury when it discovered that jury had reached unanimous not guilty verdict on certain charges); see also, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Moore , 398 Pa. 198 , 157 A.2d 65 , 70 (1959) (stating

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Johnson , 359 Pa. 287 , 59 A.2d 128 (1948) (reversing judgment of sentence imposed for manslaughter, where trial court reassembled jury to amend previously recorded but incomplete verdict); McDaniels , supra (despite recognizing trial court's "laudable" intentions, vacating not guilty verdict where trial court had previously recorded jury as deadlocked but where court later reconvened jury when it discovered that jury had reached unanimous not guilty verdict on certain charges); see also, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Moore , 398 Pa. 198 , 157 A.2d 65 , 70 (1959) (stating

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Johnson , 359 Pa. 287 , 59 A.2d 128 (1948) (reversing judgment of sentence imposed for manslaughter, where trial court reassembled jury to amend previously recorded but incomplete verdict); McDaniels , supra (despite recognizing trial court's "laudable" intentions, vacating not guilty verdict where trial court had previously recorded jury as deadlocked but where court later reconvened jury when it discovered that jury had reached unanimous not guilty verdict on certain charges); see also, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Moore , 398 Pa. 198 , 157 A.2d 65 , 70 (1959) (stating

1977Com. v. Downer, supra, 161 Pa.Super. 339, 342 , 53 A.2d 897 . . ." In Beale v. Commonwealth, 25 Pa. 11 , 22 our Supreme Court said: "The common law embodies in itself sufficient reason and common sense to reject the monstrous doctrine, that a prisoner whose guilt is established by a regular verdict is to escape punishment altogether, because the Court committed an error in passing the sentence.

1977Com. v. Downer, supra, 161 Pa.Super. 339, 342 , 53 A.2d 897 . . ." In Beale v. Commonwealth, 25 Pa. 11 , 22 our Supreme Court said: "The common law embodies in itself sufficient reason and common sense to reject the monstrous doctrine, that a prisoner whose guilt is established by a regular verdict is to escape punishment altogether, because the Court committed an error in passing the sentence.

1959The Majority is not unsympathetic to victims of sleep pirates and quotes with approval what the celebrated Justice KENT said, namely: "The doctrine of compelling a jury to unanimity by the pains of hunger and fatigue, so that the verdict in fact be founded not on temperate discussion and clear conviction, but on strength of body, is a monstrous doctrine that does not stand with conscience, but is altogether repugnant to a sense of humanity and justice." ( People v. Olcott, 2 Johns.

1959The Majority is not unsympathetic to victims of sleep pirates and quotes with approval what the celebrated Justice Kent said, namely: “The doctrine of compelling a jury to unanimity by the pains of hunger and fatigue, so that the verdict in fact be founded not on temperate discussion and clear conviction, but on strength of body, is a monstrous doctrine that does not stand with conscience, but is altogether repugnant to a sense of humanity and justice.” (People v. Olcott, 2 Johns.

1924It would be a monstrous doctrine to permit parties to tamper with judicial proceedings in such a manner.” And in Field v. Field, 67 Pa. Superior Ct. 355 , the court said: “The first petition did not set up collusion, and the second clearly alleged it.

1914Moreover, it suggests the appropriateness of quoting these remarks of the Supreme Court in Beale v. Com., 25 Pa. 11 : “The common law embodies in itself sufficient reason and common sense to reject the monstrous doctrine, that a prisoner whose guilt is established by a regular verdict is to escape punishment altogether because the court committed an error in passing the sentence.” In In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242 , Justice Field said: “Much complaint is made that persons are often discharged from arrest and imprisonment when their conviction, upon which such imprisonment was ordered, is perfectl

1912The same course was pursued in Com. v. Barge, 11 Pa. Superior Ct. 164 ; Com. v. Lewis, 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 282 ; and Com. v. Cameron, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 347 ; s. c., 229 Pa. 592 , and has the express sanction of sec. 8 of the Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212.

1912The same course was pursued in Com. v. Barge, 11 Pa. Superior Ct. 164 ; Com. v. Lewis, 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 282 ; and Com. v. Cameron, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 347 ; s. c., 229 Pa. 592 , and has the express sanction of sec. 8 of the Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212.

1912The same course was pursued in Com. v. Barge, 11 Pa. Superior Ct. 164 ; Com. v. Lewis, 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 282 ; and Com. v. Cameron, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 347 ; s. c., 229 Pa. 592 , and has the express sanction of sec. 8 of the Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212.

1912The same course was pursued in Com. v. Barge, 11 Pa. Superior Ct. 164 ; Com. v. Lewis, 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 282 ; and Com. v. Cameron, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 347 ; s. c., 229 Pa. 592 , and has the express sanction of sec. 8 of the Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212.

1861To initiate them, carry them through, act upon them as valid, and afterwards allege that they were hired, coaxed, or maltreated into becoming parties to the fraud, and seek to invalidate them in a collateral proceeding by a plea of fraud; that is what cannot be done: Braddee v. Brownfield, 4 Watts 474 ; Evans v. Dravo, 12 Harris 62.