 | This scan page has been reconstructed from the following sources:
|
Supreme Court of Pennſylvania:
Sliver, Plaintiff in Err. verſus Shelback.
T
HIS was a queſtion on a writ of error, brought to reverſe a judgment in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County againſt the plaintiff in error, when within age. The record of the Court below, ſtated, that the defendant (now plaintiff) appeared in perſon, imparled to the next term, and then appeared and ſaid nothing; wherefore, &c. The plaintiff attained his full age before he brought the writ of error.
Levy, for the plaintiff in error, cited 8 Mod. 185. Rep. temp. Hardw. 104. 376. 1 Bl. Com. 465. Cro. El. 569. 818. Lill. Ent. 252. 3. Bac. Abr. 149. But, as his arguments were afterwards admitted, and repeated by the Court, it is unneceſſary to inſert them here.
Lewis, for the defendant in error. Infancy muſt be tried by inſpection, 3 Bl.Com. 331. By the record it is ſtated, that the plaintiff in error appeared twice; and the Court might then have tried the queſtion of infancy by inſpection, if he had ſuggeſted it; fo that the is not at this time entitled to be relieved, 3 Bac. Abr. 123-134. 3 Bl. Com. 331. In all judicial proceſs, the error muſt be reverſed before 21 years are attained for what is done in Court, though not for what is done in pais; as in the latter caſe, a different mode ⟨for the trial⟩ of infancy is adopted, to wit, and inqueſt.
