How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.
This is a decision of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, given 1 January 1785, from Caselaw Access Project. No later decision here cites it — that does not show it is still good law.
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
Source
- Published by
- Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab
- Source
- Caselaw Access Project
- Licence
- Open — US judicial opinions are not copyrightable (government edicts doctrine)
- Held here since
- 26 September 2026
Version
- Decided
- 1 January 1785
- Later treatment
- Not cited by any later authority here
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Authority
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Citation
- 2 U.S. 92
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
The decision
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Decided
- 1785-01-01
Headnote
Respublica versus Steele. THE defendant being out-lawed for robbery; and afterward apprehended, was brought up for judgment ; but, denying that he was the same. Robert Steele, who was mentioned in the outlawry, an issue was joined by the Attorney General to try the identity. Lewis, as counsel for the prisoner, took two exceptions on the trial : 1st. That it was not proved, that the defendant was an inhabitant of Wright’s Town, as stated in the process of outlawry; for though it appeared that he worked there, he contended that circumstance alone did not establish a residence. 2d. That the addition is false and defective; for, he is called “Yeoman,” which means (contrary to the fact) that he is a free-holder of the value of 40 shillings per annum; and the addition does not extend to the town or hamlet, the name, degree, or mistery, without which the outlawry is void. 1 Bl. Com. 406. 2 Inst. 668. Johnson’s Dictionary, word "Yeoman.” 2 Hawk. 185. s. 102. ib. 186. s. 106. ib. 187. 8. Bradford, Attorney General, insisted, that the proof of residence was sufficiently made; and that, by the statute, the description might either be of the degree or mistery; the latter of which had been chosen in the present case. 2 Hawk. 186. Wood. Inst. 45. Argued and decided the 14th October, 1785.
Judgment
Read from a scanOCR confidence 0.626 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.
¶ 1[majority — By the Court:]
¶ 2By the Court: —It is necessary to state the township; but if the defendant is proved to have been there, it is enough to satisfy the designation. The first day a man comes into a place, he is a stranger; the second day he is considered as a guest;. and the third day he becomes an inhabitant. But if any oncomes from New-Jersey, and stays only an hour in Pennsylvania, during which he commits an offence, he must be charged as of the township, in which he was at the time ; for, he cannot be called of New-Jersey. With respect to the objection against the form of the addition, it is to be observed, that the statute requires the description of a state, degree, or mistery; but either of them is sufficient. For instance, it has never been doubted, but that the addition of widow, or spinster, is valid, and yet such addition is certainly not descriptive of any degree or mistery. The issue being found for the Commonwealth, sentence of death was pronounced, and the defendant was soon afterwards, executed.
AI summary
Choose who the summary is for. Every statement links to the paragraph it comes from — the summary is never the only way to read this.
Ask LawTAG
Sign in to ask your team's LawTAGs about this page.
What it relied on
No outbound citations have been extracted for this decision.
In the news
News coverage of “Respublica v. Steele” in the last three months, from GDELT.