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 April 1776, 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 April 1776
- Later treatment
- Not cited by any later authority here
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Authority
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Citation
- 1 U.S. 29
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
- 1776-04-01
Headnote
Keppele v. Williams. Practice. — Continuance. It is a contempt, to pocket the venire. A Venire had issued, and the jury was summoned: the plaintiff forbade the sheriff to bring the jury to the court. On the day of trial, the plaintiff’s attorney demanded the venire. Defendant’s attorney opposed it, and advised the sheriff to deliver it into court. The jury also attended, upon the application of defendant’s attorney. The court was then moved for their direction.
Judgment
Read from a scanOCR confidence 0.432 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]
¶ 2They took the venire and called for the panel. The Chief Justice quoting the following authorities, to show that it would be a contempt to pocket the venire: Comb. 303; (4 Mod. 367) Jones v. Earl of Bath; Vin. Abr., tit. Trial, 329. The plaintiff then moved to continue the cause, which was allowed, defendant having no proviso rule. Defendant then moved for a proviso rule, to which plaintiff objected, and made affidavit of the absence of a material witness, and service of a subpoena, on which the motion dropped. Here terminate all the decisions, previously to the Revolution,, which I have been able to collect. For the cases, from the first page to the close of the seventeenth, I am indebted to the Hon. Edward Shippen, Esquire ; who obligingly permitted me to publish them from his manuscript, in the possession of Mr. Burd. The rest of the cases, through the kindness of the Attorney-General, I have had an opportunity of extracting from the notebook of the deceased Joseph Reed, Esquire, formerly President of this state.
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 “Keppele v. Williams” in the last three months, from GDELT.