
    Res'publica versus Wray.
    THE Defendant on the lit of June, 1798, had been appointed treafurer for the County of Cumberland', “ for three years, to commence on the 5th of June followingi” but upon a fuggeftion of improper practices in procuring the appointment, the Attorney General obtained a rule to ihew caufe, why an information in the nature of a writ of quo ivarranto ihould not be filed againft him.
    In fupport of the rule, affidavits and office papers were produced, with a view to ihew, that the Defendant was in em-barraffed circumftances; and that he had procured the vote of one of the County Ccmmiffioners, .under an affurance, that he Would foon refign the office of treafurer, as he only wiihed to be appointed to it, in order to promote his election as Sheriff of the county. There was, likewife, an ineffectual attempt to prove that the commiffioner, who had thus voted, and the Defendant, were not citizens of the United States-. And, in point of law, it was objefted, that the appointment was void ab initio, being made to commence in futuro.
    
   The rule was oppofed by Dallas and MíKean-, and the opinion of the court in the abfence of the Chief Justice, was delivered by

Shitpen, Joffice.

The prefent is the firft inftance, that we recoliefl:, of an application of this kind in Pennfyluania-, and on opening jthe cafe, .it ftrock us to be within the ioth feftion of the 9th Article of the Co!)ftitution,’whichdeclares,.“ thatno “ pcifon ftiall for any indiiSable offence, be proceeded againft “ criminally by information,” except in-cafes that ara not in-yolved In the prefent motion. But, on conftderation, it is evident, that the Conftitution refers to information?, as a form of profecution, to punida ar> offender, without the intervention .of a grand jury; whereas an information, in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, is applied to the mere p.urpofes of trying a civil right and oufting the wrongful poffcilbr of an office.

Since, therefore, there is fome evidence (however flight) of improper condufl, wc do not think, that it would be right to efufean opportunity for a jury(who are the legal judges of the weight of evidence) to determine, whether it is funicient to vitiate the Defendant’s appointment of County Treafurer.

And, at the fame time, the points of law, that have been fug-gefted, may be maturely coniidered and decided.

The rule made abfolute. 
      
       See 3 m. Om. 263.
     
      
       For the laws relating to Couatv Trea-fuiws, Which -were cite.'l in the courfe of the argument, See Balt. Edil. 1 Vot. -21.3.27. 2 ⅜*. .-up ,5 ft-./. ~5o. ■
      
     