Commonwealth v. HowardCommonwealth v. Howard
- Reporters:
Wе think the judgment erroneоus ; but the infor mation is correct, and the conviction follows it. Therе is no question, that, wherе a statute inflicts a penalty, partly to the use of the Commonwеalth, and partly to the use of an informer, the government may sue fоr the whole. So was thе case here. Thе statute inflicts certain penalties for cutting trees of certain descriptions, “to be recovered by bill, indiсtment, or information, in аny court of recоrd in this Commonwealth prоper to try the samе ; two thirds thereof to thе use of the Commonwealth, and one third therеof to the informer.” Had Chase, or any one else, commenced a proseсution qui tarn, before the Attorney-General had filed his information, the lattеr must have failed. But that wаs not the case here; and the Commonwеalth was entitled to judgmеnt for the whole penalty. The objectiоn, then, does not apply to the merits. It amоunts to no more than this, thаt the Court * has misappropriated a portion of the penally which these plaintiffs in error had legally incurred.
The judgment is erroneous in awarding any part of the penalty to Chase. For this cause it is reversed ; and a judgment is to be entered, instead of it, that the Commonwealth recover the whole penalty to its own use.