Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Contracts · MBE-tested
Respublica versus Roberts
2 U.S. 1242 Dall. 124·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1791·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
April Term, 1791.
Respublica versus Roberts.
THIS was an indictment for adultery, which had been found in the Quarter Sessions, of Bucks County. The woman was married; but the indictment did not state the defendant to be so; and, indeed, the contrary was allowed, in the course of the argument, to be the fact. The question brought before, this Court was, whether in such circumstances, the defendant would be convicted and sentenced for adultery, under the act of Assembly? 1 Vol. p. 47. Dall. Edit. the Attor ney General contending for the affirmative of the proposition, and Serjeant opposing it.
[MAJORITY]
The Court, after consideration, delivered an unanimous opinion, that under the act of Assembly, and the uniform practice of eighty-five years (a practice, which, though it does not make the law, must be strong evidence of what the law is ) the indictment could not be supported on the charge of adultery: But that the judgment for fornication only, must be pronounced against the defendant.
Judgment accordingly.