The opinion of the court was delivered by
The facts upon which the present application is made are substantially as follows: The relator was indicted, with Cory and Harrington, for conspiracy. After a plea of not guilty had been withdrawn and a motion to quash the indictment had been overruled, a trial of the defendants Peacock and Harrington was commenced, but, before its conclusion, Peacock, with the consent of the prosecutor and with the permission of the court, entered a plea of nolo contendere, and Harrington was acquitted.
In the same cause the established practice is to treat the plea of nolo contendere as operating as an admission of the
We think that the relator, by his plea, has placed himself in a position where, by the terms of the act of 1883, he is not entitled to a stay of proceedings upon the judgment by reason of his taking a writ of error. This being so, the Court of Quarter Sessions were right in refusing to take bail, inasmuch as the duty of the court in that respect was dependent upon the fact that the proceedings were stayed by the writ of error. Pam/ph. L. 1881, p. 88.
The writ is refused.