Commonwealth v. Balph

Decision Date04 January 1886
Citation111 Pa. 365,3 A. 220
PartiesCommonwealth v. Balph et al
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued March 15, 1884

On the 1st of March, 1884, R. A. Balph, Henry P. Ford, N. S. Snyder and M. Harrison presented a petition to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the court not being in session, praying that a writ of certiorari might issue to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Warren to remove the record and all proceedings in the case of the Commonwealth v. R. A. Balph, Henry P Ford, N. S. Snyder and M. Harrison to the Supreme Court.

After consideration the court made the following orders:

Commonwealth v. R. A. Balph, Henry P. Ford, et al. Indictment pending in the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for the County of Warren.

And now to wit: March 3d, 1884, on application of the defendants a rule is granted on the Commonwealth to show cause why a writ of certiorari shall not issue to the Court of Quarter Sessions of said county, to remove the record and all proceedings in due course to the court. Rule returnable on Saturday, the 15th of March instant. It is further ordered that all proceedings in the court below be stayed in the meantime. Per Curiam.

Gordon and Trunkey, JJ., dissent to the granting of the rule.

The petition upon which the rule was granted set out inter alia that the petitioners are all citizens of Allegheny County Pa., that Balph is a member of the bar of said county, that Ford is one of the executors of Sarah Ann Ford, that Snyder and Harrison are of the detective force of Pittsburgh, and at the time of the grievances complained of were acting as Deputy Sheriffs of Allegheny County.

That S V. Davis of Warren, Warren County, Pa., made information before a Justice of the Peace charging the defendants with conspiracy to seize, capture and arrest him and take him a prisoner, and in pursuance of said conspiracy did seize, capture and take him a prisoner, and that thereupon a warrant was issued for their arrest which was returned: The defendants not found in my bailiwick.

That the information and return were laid before the Grand Jury of Warren County, which found a true bill against them in accordance with the said information. That they were subsequently arrested at Pittsburgh and gave bail for their appearance at the next term of the Quarter Sessions of Warren County.

That the case is set down for trial March 3d, 1884.

That the circumstances which led to the making of the information and the finding of the true bill are in brief: That Sarah Ann Ford, since deceased, filed her bill in equity in the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1 of Allegheny County, alleging that she and her sister, Caroline M. Lacy, were tenants in common of certain timber tracts in the Counties of Forest and Clarion, Pa., that they had carried on a partnership in the development of said tracts and in the manufacture and sale of timber from said tracts. That irreconcilable differences existed between her and her sister as to the winding up of said business. She prayed, inter alia, for the appointment of a receiver. That upon due consideration on December 7th, 1881, the court appointed Samuel Lewis receiver, who qualified and took possession of said property and business for the purpose of administering the same under the direction of said court.

That Caroline M. Lacy and her husband filed a bill in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County, alleging the said tenancy in common of said lands and praying for the partition thereof. That the case was proceeded with until the 15th of March, 1882, when the court upon due consideration appointed S. V. Davis, Esq., of Warren, receiver, who qualified and undertook to take possession of the said property and business in possession of Samuel Lewis as receiver. That from that time forward continual disputes existed. That there was a conflict of authority between the two receivers each claiming the exclusive control and right of possession of the same business and property by virtue of orders of the respective courts appointing them.

That on the 5th day of June, 1882, the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1 of Allegheny County, granted a preliminary injunction restraining the said Caroline M. Lacy and her husband from interfering directly or indirectly with the authority of Samuel Lewis, receiver. From this decree an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, which appeal was dismissed and the decree affirmed. That on application by the representatives of Sarah Ann Ford, the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County, on the 27th of February, 1883, made an order directing S. V. Davis, receiver, to withdraw from the control and custody of the said business and property.

That on application of the said S. V. Davis, the said Court of Common Pleas of Forest County, on the 22d of May, 1883, granted a writ of assistance directed to the Sheriff of Forest County to enter upon the said property and exclude all parties other than the said S. V. Lewis.

That on the 15th of June, 1883, the said Samuel Lewis, receiver, presented his petition to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny County, praying that an attachment might issue for contempt against S. V. Davis, who was interfering with him in the performance of his duty as receiver. That on the 22d of June, 1883, S. V. Davis filed his answer and after hearing on the 29th of June, 1883, an attachment was directed to issue by said court against the said S. V. Davis for contempt returnable forthwith. That the Sheriff of Allegheny County deputized two of the petitioners, N. S. Snyder and M. Harrison, to serve said writ. That they arrested said S. V. Davis at Warren by virtue of said writ, and were proceeding with him to Pittsburgh, when at Kane he was forcibly rescued from their custody and returned to his home. That this rescue was the subject of public rejoicing in the County of Warren and was published in inflammatory articles in the newspapers of said county and circulated and read in said county.

That on the 8th of September, 1883, the Sheriff of Allegheny County made his return to the attachment showing the arrest and rescue, and thereupon the said Court of Common Pleas, No. 1 of Allegheny County, issued an alias writ of attachment for the said S. V. Davis, by virtue of which John Doyle, a Deputy Sheriff of Allegheny County, arrested the said S. V. Davis at Warren. That the President Judge of Warren County issued a writ of habeas corpus directing that the said S. V. Davis should be brought before him, and that after hearing he directed that he be discharged from the custody of the Deputy Sheriff of Allegheny County, which was accordingly done.

That H. P. Ford had no connection with the arrest of the said S. V. Davis, other than being a party plaintiff to the record in the case in the Common Pleas of Allegheny County. That R. A. Balph had no connection with the arrest of the said S. V. Davis other than being one of the counsel of H. P. Ford. That M. Harrison and N. S. Snyder had no connection with the matter other than the service of the attachment in their official capacity.

That a fair and impartial trial cannot be had before the said judge, no allegation or charge is made against his honesty, and before a jury of Warren County, nor at a trial to be held in the said county or in the neighborhood thereof. That no relief is afforded them to secure a change of venue by any Act of Assembly.

The Commonwealth by Wm. Swanson, District Attorney of Warren County, filed an answer to the petition upon which the rule was granted, setting forth inter alia that the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County over the real property had attached six months before the bill of Sarah Ann Ford was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1 of Allegheny County. That while Samuel Lewis was appointed receiver he never took legal possession of said property. That S. V. Davis as receiver did take peaceable and undisputed possession of said property. That the said S. V. Davis as receiver made application to the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County and obtained a restraining order restraining the said Samuel Lewis from interfering with said property, which order and injunction the said Samuel Lewis had openly and notoriously violated. That in July, 1883, after hearing, the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny County, refused an attachment for contempt for S. V. Davis. That the attachment of June, 1883, was issued without taking testimony.

That this writ of attachment was placed in the hands of the said S. N. Snyder and M. Harrison, who executed the same beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the officer to whom it was directed, that they were not deputized by the Sheriff of Allegheny County, and were acting as private detectives without authority of law, and kidnapped and abducted the said S. V. Davis. That the said S. V. Davis was not rescued as alleged in the petition.

That from the second arrest the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County legally, upon hearing, discharged the said S. V. Davis. That there is no reason why the petitioners may not have a fair and impartial trial before the said judge, before a jury of Warren County in Warren County.

That the defendants are guilty of the misdemeanors for which they are indicted, as will be shown by evidence at the trial. That the bill was found at September Sessions, 1883, and that the trial of the case has been continued to the present time, and that the petitioners are therefore guilty of gross laches.

SYLLABUS

The Supreme Court of this Commonwealth has power to issue a writ of certiorari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of any of the counties to remove a pending indictment and all proceedings thereon into the Supreme Court. It has the power...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Neil v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Idaho
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1919
    ... ... The latter section, however, falls far short of being ... so broad and extensive as the writ known to the common law ... (See Commonwealth v. Balph et al., 111 Pa. 365, 3 A ... 220, where the scope of the writ is elaborately reviewed.) ... The ... language of sec. 63(a), ... ...
  • Bilbar Const. Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Easttown Tp.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1958
    ... ... 401, 405-406, 178 A ... 291; Busser v. Snyder, 282 Pa. 440, 449, 128 A. 80, ... 37 A.L.R. 1515; Commonwealth v. Sweeney, 281 Pa ... 550, 556-557, 127 A.226; Commonwealth v. Grossman, ... 248 Pa. 11, 14, 93 A. 781; Gottschall v. Campbell, supra. In ... Campbell, 378 Pa. 311, 106 A.2d 416; Commonwealth v ... Onda, 376 Pa. 405, 103 A.2d 90; Commonwealth v ... Balph, 111 Pa. 365, 3 A. 220. In Delaware County ... National Bank v. Campbell, 378 Pa. at page 316, 106 A.2d ... at page 419, supra, the Court said: ... ...
  • Bilbar Const. Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Easttown Tp.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1958
    ... ... 71] Miners of Pennsylvania, 318 Pa. 401, 405-406, 178 A. 291; Busser v. Snyder, 282 Pa. 440, 449, 128 A. 80, 37 A.L.R. 1515; Commonwealth v. Sweeney, 281 Pa. 550, 556-557, 127 A.226; Commonwealth v. Grossman, 248 Pa. 11, 14, 93 A. 781; Gottschall v. Campbell, supra. In particular, ... 4 Delaware County National Bank v. Campbell, 378 Pa. 311, 106 A.2d 416; Commonwealth v. Onda, 376 Pa. 405, 103 A.2d 90; Commonwealth v. Balph, 111 Pa. 365, 3 A. 220. In Delaware County National Bank v. Campbell, 378 Pa. at page 316, 106 A.2d at page 419, supra, the Court said: 'This case ... ...
  • Petition of Bell
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1959
    ...was exercised in criminal cases on the crown side of the court and in civil cases on the plea side of the court. Commonwealth v. Balph, 111 Pa. 365, 376, 3 A. [396 Pa. 623] By Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 784, § 1, 17 P.S. § 41, the legislature confirmed our power '* * * to minister justice t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT