Chapman Township v. Herrold

• Decision Date: 10 February 1868
• Citation: 58 Pa. 106
• Parties: Chapman Township <I>versus</I> Herrold.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

58 Pa. 106

Chapman Township versus Herrold.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 28 and 29, 1868.

February 10, 1868.

January 28th and 29th 1868.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ. STRONG, J., at Nisi Prius

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder county: No. 140, to January Term 1868.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. C. Bucher and G. F. Miller, for plaintiff in error.—A court is bound to give distinct answers to points: Pennsylvania Railroad v. Zebe, 9 Casey 318; Smith v. Thompson, 2 S. & R. 49; Noble v. McClintock, 6 W. & S. 58; Lack. & B. Railroad v. Chenewith, 2 P. F. Smith 382.

A. C. Simpson, for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered, February 10th 1868, by AGNEW, J.

It is useless to examine in detail the errors assigned to the admission of the evidence. In substance they all come down to the same thing, that the officers of the United States engaged in the mustering in of volunteers cannot be called to prove their own acts and official papers, and that others who were actually present participating in the proceeding of putting in the volunteers and obtaining the credits to the township of Chapman, and who saw and heard the mustering officers take them in and give their official papers evidencing their official acts, cannot make the same proof; and that these documents when thus clearly and fully proved cannot be put in evidence after the facts they evidence have been thus fully proved by the officers or by those who were actually present and knew them to take place. Clearly they were evidence to go to the jury, leaving them to be disproved if the plaintiff could do so. When officers acting in the capacity these were, known to the whole community, recognised by the public at large as lawfully engaged in a great public service of momentous importance, and whose want of authority would be at once challenged, and yet was doubted by no one, are thus engaged in the public service, their official character, especially when proved by themselves or their associates, should be assumed as existing at least in a primâ facie degree. For all the purposes of this case they were to be deemed officers de facto in respect to the public, and it was only in this light the defendant was called upon to view them. We discover no error in the bills of exception.

Nor do we perceive any error in the answers of the court to the points. The copies of entries on the books of the War Department certified by Secretary...