Commonwealth v. Quarter Sessions

• Decision Date: 28 June 1848
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Quarter Sessions, 8 Pa. 391 (Pa. 1848)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH <I>v.</I> JUDGES OF QUARTER SESSIONS.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

8 Pa. 391

COMMONWEALTHv.JUDGES OF QUARTER SESSIONS.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 28, 1848.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

L. Kline and J. Weidman, for relator.—The act of 8th March, 1847, was unconstitutional, and consequently the judicial decree creating the township remained in full force: Parker v.Commonwealth, 6 Barr, 507; Ricev.Foster, 7 Law Jour. 198.

The mode in which the election of constable was effected cannot be examined here. That can only be contested in the way provided by the acts of Assembly.

The act of 1840 does not apply to cases where townships are divided; it only applies to election districts.

Ulrich, contrà.—There were two legal objections to administering the usual oath of a constable to the relator, Henry Phillippi.

In the first place, he claimed to be the constable of Washington township, in the county of Lebanon, when in fact it was manifest from the record, that there was no such township in the county of Lebanon.Although, from a portion of the record returned to this court, it would appear as if the township of Bethel had at one time been divided into two separate townships; upon examination, however, of the whole record, it will appear that upon the final proceedings, the court refused to divide the township of Bethel and to erect the township of Washington into a separate township.The so called township of Washington was not organized; neither had it any legal existence at the time the legislature submitted the propriety of erecting the township of Washington to the voters in the township of Bethel.The result of the vote taken upon the division of Bethel township, clearly shows that the division of said township was unnecessary.Whether that election was constitutional or not, cannot affect the relator's case, for the inhabitants of Bethel township without exception, those opposed and in favour of the new township, acquiesced in that election, and in fact ratified it by their subsequent application for proceedingsde novo.

The remaining objection to administering the official oath to the relator, was still stronger than the former; for it appeared by the several election returns, and from the records of the Court of Quarter Sessions, that the election held in the so-called township of Washington, was an undue election and illegal, not having been held according to the 27th section of the act of 7th March, 1840, Purdon's Digest, 393.The court were bound to take notice of such undue election, and could not...