Commonwealth v. Kenney

Citation80 Pa.Super. 418
Decision Date02 March 1923
Docket Number135-1922
PartiesCommonwealth v. Kenney, Appellant
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

Argued October 18, 1922

Appeal by defendant, from order of Municipal Court of Philadelphia Domestic Relations Division, No. 41, 997, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Thomas H. Kenney.

Petition alleging desertion and praying for an order for support. Before Brown, P. J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

The court entered an order directing the defendant to pay the sum of $ 50 per week for the support of his wife and child. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were the order of the court and assumption of jurisdiction by the court.

Affirmed.

Francis S. Laws, of Lewis, Adler & Laws, for appellant. -- The Act of 1867 is merely a " support act" and in no sense a criminal act and hence there is no power under that act to extradite a defendant: Com. v. Nagle, 31 Pa.Super 175; Com. v. Mills, 26 Pa.Super. 549.

Franklin E. Barr, Assistant District Attorney, and with him Samuel P Rotan, District Attorney, for appellee. -- The mere fact that the defendant is within the Commonwealth and has neglected to give support is sufficient to give jurisdiction: Demott v. Com., 64 Pa. 302; Barnes' App., 2 Pennypacker 506.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

OPINION

TREXLER, J.

The proceedings in this case appear to be entirely regular. There is a petition under oath presented by the wife alleging that her husband without reasonable cause separated from her and ceased to maintain her and her child. Defendant is brought into court and the matter is heard and an order for support made. This was done under Act of April 13, 1867, P. L. 78, which is still in force and has not been superseded by the Act of March 13, 1903, P. L. 26, which made desertion a misdemeanor: Com. v. Nagle, 31 Pa.Super. 175.

The defendant contends that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint, that the case should have been heard by a jury, that he was extradited on a charge of desertion under the Act of 1867 and that it was only under the Act of 1903, supra, making desertion a misdemeanor that he could have been brought from New York to Pennsylvania for trial.

We search in vain in the record to find any place in the trial where the question was properly raised. Indeed we have no proper record showing that defendant was extradited. The only item in the docket having any possible reference to it is that a " fugitive" warrant was issued, but the warrant itself gives defendant's residence as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Commonwealth ex rel. Master v. Baldi
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 20 Marzo 1950
    ...... 66 S.Ct. 332, 90 L.Ed. 475; Chandler v. United [166. Pa.Super. 422] States, 171 F.2d 921, 934, certiorari. denied, 336 U.S. 918,. [72 A.2d 155] . 69 S.Ct. 640, 93 L.Ed. 1081; Jackson v. Olson, 146. Neb. 885, 22 N.W.2d 124, 165 A. L. R. 932; Dows'. Case, 18 Pa. 37; Com. v. Kenney, 80 Pa.Super. 418, 419; 22 Am. Jur., Extradition, Sec. 65; Annotation, 165. A. L. R. 947-967. . . Relator. contends that the alleged action of the police officers in. removing him by force and without authority from Maryland to. Pennsylvania violated the Uniform Criminal ......
  • Com. ex rel. Master v. Baldi
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 20 Marzo 1950
    ...155 69 S.Ct. 640, 93 L.Ed. 1081; Jackson v. Olson, 146 Neb. 885, 22 N.W.2d 124, 165 A.L.R. 932; Dows' Case, 18 Pa. 37; Com. v. Kenney, 80 Pa.Super. 418, 419; 22 Am.Jur., Extradition, Sec. 65; Annotation, 165 A.L.R. Relator contends that the alleged action of the police officers in removing ......
  • Com. ex rel. Di Dio v. Baldi
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 13 Julio 1954
    ...in which a person accused of crime is brought within the Commonwealth does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. In Commonwealth v. Kenney, 80 Pa.Super. 418, we refused to countenance a contention that the lower court did not have jurisdiction because the defendant had been improperly e......
  • Appeal of Cowell
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 27 Septiembre 1976
    ......No Ohio court passed. judgment on the legality of appellant's detention or his. removal to Pennsylvania. . . The. Commonwealth's argument that the Juvenile Court obtained. jurisdiction over the person of appellant when the petition. alleging delinquency was filed is without ... . [5] We are not utterly without precedent in. applying the rule to what is, technically, not a criminal. proceeding. See Commonwealth v. Kenney, 80 Pa.Super. 418. (1923). . . [6] Although we will consider this assignment. as challenging all the rulings differed with in the. ......
  • 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