Respublica v. Teischer
for the redress of the injury that has been done him; but where false weights and measures are used, or false token produced, or such methods taken to cheat and deceive, as people cannot by any ordinary care or prudence by guarded against, there it is an offence indictable.}}–Accordingly in Crown Circ. Comp. 231. 1 Stra. 595. S. C. Crown Circ. Comp. 24. are cases of private wrongs and yet punished by indictment; because, as it is said in Burrow, common prudence could not have guarded the persons against the injury and inconveniency, which they respectively sustained. The same reason must have prevailed is an indictment at Lancaster (the draft of which remains in the precedent book of the successive Attornies General of this State) for poisoning bread, and giving it to some chickens; and it applies in full force to the case before the Court.
Independent, however, of these authorities and principles, the Jury have found the killing to be something more than a trespass; and that it was done maliciously forms the gist of the indictment; which must be proven by the prosecutor, and might have been controverted and denied by the Defendant. Being therefore charged, and found by the verdict, it was more than form; it was matter of substance.
The opinion of the Court was delivered on the 15th of July, by the Chief Justice.
M'Kean, Chief Justice. The Defendant was indicted for “maliciously, willfully, and wickedly killing a horse,” and being convicted by the Jury, it has been urged, in arrest of judgment, that this offence was not of an indictable nature.
It is true, that on the examination of the cases we have not found the line accurately drawn; but, it seems to be agreed, that whatever amounts to a public wrong may be made the subject of an indictment. The poisoning of chickens; cheating with false dice; fraudulently tearing a promissory note, and many other offences of a similar description, have heretofore been indicted in Pennsylvania; and 12 Mod. 337. furnishes the case of an indictment for killing a dog;—an animal of far less value than a horse. Breaking windows by throwing stones at them, though a sufficient number of persons were not engaged to render it a riot: and the embezzlement of public monies, have, likewise, in this State been deemed public wrongs, for which private sufferer was not alone entitled to redress; and unless, indeed, an indictment would lie, there are some very heinous offences, which might be perpetrated without absolute impunity; since the rules of evidence, in a civil suit, exclude the testimony of the party injured, though the nature of the transaction generally makes it impossible to produce any other proof.
For these reasons, therefore, and for many others which it is unnecessary to recapitulate, as we entertain no doubt upon the subject, we think, the indictment will lie.
Let judgment be entered for the Commonwealth.