FISCHER V. HAYBS. ���73 ���In Harris v. The Commonwealth, 23 Pick. 280, it ia held that where, for an offence, the punishment is a fine without imi^risonment, the settled rule of law is that the sentence is to pay the fine, or stand committed until that sentence be per- formed. �In Wilde v. The Commonweallh, 2 Met. 408, 411, it is said that where the statute authorizes a punishment by fine, costs may be awarded as incident, and the party convicted may be committed till such fine and costs be paid. �In Reyinav. Dunn, 12 Ad. &E11. (N. S.) 1026, the defendant was indieted for an offence, and convicted, and sentenced to be imprisoned for 18 months, and to give security to keep the peace for two years after the expiration of the 18 months, and to stand committed till be should give such security. The exchequer chamber, on a writ of error, held that the sentence was proper. �In the case of Drayton and Sears, 5 Opinions of Attorneys General, 579, cited in In re Mullee, 7 Blatchf. 23, they were convicted on an indictment under a statute which imposed only a pecuniary fine for the offence. A fine, with costs, was inflicted, and the court ordered them to be imprisoned till the fine and costs should be paid. They were imprisoned for four years, and then applied to the president for a pardon, and the attorney general, Mr. Crittenden, was of opinion that the president had the power, by pardon, to discharge them from prison and to remit the fine, although, by the statute, one-half of the fine was to go to a private person and the other half to a county. �In United States v.. Rohbins, 15 Int. Eev. Eec. 155, the de- fendant was convicted on an indictment, and sentenced to be imprisoned for a year, and to pay a fine and costs, and to stand committed until the fine and costs should be paid. After the expiration of the year's imprisonment, the fine and costs not being paid, and the defendant being still in jail, he was brought up on habeas corpus, and claimed that the part of the sentence which ordered him to stand committed until the fine and costs should be paid was void. The statute author- iiied both a fine and imprisonment. The court held that, ��� �
