1788.
BRYAN,Juʃtice. I ftill fay, that not having heard what has been offered in extenuation of the offences, I am incompetent to join in any opinion refpecting the punifhment. I cannot furely be fufpected of partiality to libellers: I have had my fhare of their male-violence. But, it is true, I have not fuffered much ; for thefe trifles do not wrankle in my mind.
The chief justice pronounced the judgment of the court in the following words:
M‘KEAN, C.J. –Eleazer Oʃwald: Having yefterday confidered the charge againft you, we were unanimoufly of opinion, that it amounted to a contempt of the court. Some doubts were fuggefted, whether, even a contempt of the court. Some doubts were fuggefted, whether, even a contempt of the court, was punifhable by attachment: but, not only my brethren and myfelf, but, likewife all the judges of England, think that without this power no court could poffibly exift;–nay, that no contempt could, indeed, be committed againft us, we fhould be ʃo truly contemptible. The law upon the fubject is of immemorial antiquity ; and there is not any period when it can be faid to have ceafed, or difcontinued. On this point, therefore, we entertain no doubt.
But fome difficulty has arifen with refpect to our fentence ; for, on the one hand, we have been informed of your circumftances, and on the other, we have feen your conduct: your circumftances are fmall, but your offence is great and perfifted in. Since, however, the queftion feems to refolve itfelf into this, whether you fhall bend to the law, or the law fhall bend to you, it is our duty to determine that the former fhall be on the cafe.
Upon the whole, therefore, THE COURT pronounce this fentence:–That you pay a fine of 101. to the Commonwealth ; that you be imprifoned for the fpace of one month, that is, from the 15th day of July to the 15th day of Auguft next ; and, afterwards, till the fine and cofts are paid.– Sheriff he is in your cuftody.[1]
LESHER
- ↑ The fentence, on the point imprifonement, was entered upon the record for the ʃpace oƒ one month, without taking notice of the explanatory words ufed by the Court. At the expiration of the legal month, (28 days) Mr. Oswald demanded his difcharge; but with this the Sheriff, who had heard the fentence pronounced, refufed to complete ‘till he had confulted thechief justice. His Honor, remembering the (illegible text) and words of the Court, told this officer, at firft, that he was bound to detain his prifoner ‘till the morning of the 15th of of Auguʃt, but having fhortly afterwards examined the record, he wrote to the Sheriff, that Mr. Oswald, agreeably to the entry there, was entitled to his difcharge.
On the 5th of September 1788, Mr. Oswald prefented a memorial to the General Aʃʃembly, in which he ftated the proceedings againft him, complained of the decifion of three of the Judges of the Court, in the principal cafe, and of the direction of the CHIEF JUSTICE to the Sheriff, by which, he alledged, his confinement had afterwards been illegally protracted:– finally calling upon the houfe to determine, ‘‘ whether the Judges did not infringe the conftitution in direct term in the fen-}}
