Commonwealth v. Rohrer

• Decision Date: 27 August 1937
• Docket Number: 118
• Citation: 37 Pa. D. & C. 410
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Rohrer
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

37 Pa. D. & C. 410

Commonwealth v. Rohrer

No. 118

Common Pleas Court of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

August 27, 1937

December term, 1936,

Indictment for violation of Milk Control Board Law.

Harry Polikoff, Deputy Attorney General, and K L. Shirk, assistant district attorney, for Commonwealth.

Frederick Crankshaw, and Bard & Brown, for defendant.

Frank E. Coho, Deputy Attorney General,

W. Hensel Brown for defendant.

OPINION

SCHAEFFER, J.

Defendant, Wayne L. Rohrer, a resident and milk dealer of Lancaster County, Pa., was indicted for an alleged violation of the Milk Control Board Law of April 30, 1935, P. L. 96, sec. 18 (E.) by selling milk below the minimum prices fixed by the Pennsylvania Milk Control Board, through the allowance of a two percent discount. Defendant admits allowing such a discount but contends that under the law his contract and dealings with the Federal Government for the supply of milk for the United States Veterans Hospital at Coatesville, Pa., are beyond the jurisdiction of this court.

Defendant agreed in writing, with the consent of his attorneys, to waive trial by jury and elected to be tried by a judge without a jury in accordance with the Act of June 11, 1935, P. L. 319, sec. 1. At the trial no testimony was taken but counsel for the Commonwealth and defendant submitted the following stipulation of facts to be read into the record:

" 1. That the offer to sell and sale in the instant proceeding was made by this defendant, a milk dealer doing business with the general public in Lancaster, Pa., with the Federal Government, through the Veterans Administration Facility located at Coatesville, Pa., for the supply of milk to the said United States Veterans Hospital.

" 2. That invitations to bid on the milk contract to supply milk to the United States Veterans Hospital at Coatesville, Pa., came through said Veterans Administration Facility.

" 3. That on or about December 17, 1936, a bid was made and submitted by defendant at the Veterans Administration Facility at Coatesville, Pa., by defendant sending his duly-authorized representative to the Veterans Administration Facility at Coatesville, Pa., to personally present defendant's bid; and notice of acceptance thereof was duly received by defendant at his place of business in Lancaster, Pa.

" 4. That all the milk under the contract between the Veterans Administration Facility at Coatesville, Pa., and defendant was delivered and consumed on the premises of the Veterans Administration Facility at Coatesville, Pa.

" 5. That payment was made to defendant on the said contract through and by the United States Government, through the office of the Treasurer of the United States, who issued his voucher for payment of all milk delivered under said contract.

" 6. That the Veterans Administration Facility at Coatesville, Pa., is an agent of the Veterans Administration of Washington, D. C., and the Veterans Administration of Washington, D. C., is an agency of the United States Government.

" 7. That an alleged offense in the instant proceeding is the third, if any, committed by defendant under the act of assembly involved herein, namely, the Milk Control Board Law of April 30, 1935, P. L. 96, and the Milk Control Law of April 28, 1937, P. L. 417, insofar as the saving clauses of the latter act save offenses committed under the former act.

" 8. That Official General Order No. 28, duly issued by the Milk Control Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prescribed certain minimum prices for the milk and milk products specified in the above invitations to bid submitted by the said Veterans Administration Facility. Defendant bid the prescribed prices, less a discount of two percent, cash ten days, contrary to section 18 of the aforesaid act, and section 19 of the aforesaid order, prohibiting discounts."

Counsel for defendant offered in evidence the Act of July 12, 1935, P. L. 651, and it was stated at the trial that: " It is conceded by counsel for the defense that if any offense occurred in the State of Pennsylvania, it occurred in the County of Lancaster and not in the County of Chester, for the purpose of jurisdiction in this court only."

The Act of July 12, 1935, supra, is relied upon by defendant's counsel, who say in their brief:

" It is perfectly obvious that no law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Milk Control Board Law or otherwise, is of any virtue, force, or effect on these lands and that this act of assembly is a complete and irrefutable defense to the charge brought against Rohrer in this case." This act provides, inter alia, as follows:

" Section 1.... That the consent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby granted to the purchase, by the Government of the United States, of certain tracts of land, containing approximately three hundred sixty-eight acres, for use in the care and treatment of discharged sick and disabled soldiers, or for other uses of the United States; said tracts of land being situate in Caln Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania....

" Section 2. Exclusive jurisdiction over the lands so purchased is hereby ceded to the United States by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and said lands shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes, State and local: Provided, That the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shall retain a concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over the lands so acquired by the United States for the purpose of serving of all civil processes: And provided further, That such criminal processes as may issue under the authority of the Commonwealth, against any person or persons charged with crimes committed without the area so acquired, may be executed therein, in the same manner as though this cession had not been granted."

Under the Act of Congress passed March 4, 1931, c. 521, sec. 4, 46 Stat. at L. 1550, 38 U.S.C. § 438m, the President of the United States is authorized to accept from any State any ground suitable for the care of disabled veterans of all wars. No evidence was submitted of such acceptance, but the present status of the veterans hospital in question warrants the conclusion that the President accepted the land ceded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the United States Government.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Manlove v. McDermott, 308 Pa. 384 (1932), affirming 104 Pa.Super 560, recognized the right of the State to cede land to the United States Government for Government purposes, reserving the right of service of State civil and criminal processes therein. At page 386 of the opinion it is said:

" Action under similar reservations of the right to serve civil and criminal process in lands so ceded to the federal government has been held not to interfere with the supremacy of the United States over the land ceded; on the contrary, such action is supported in order that the land ceded may not become a refuge for persons fleeing from the police or the sheriff: United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason 60, Fed. Cas. No. 14867; Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 5 S.Ct. 995, 29 L. Edition 264." See also County of Allegheny v. McClung, 53 Pa. 482.

In the interpretation of the Act of July 12, 1935, P. L. 651, the intention of the legislature may be gathered from similar acts of assembly of this State. The Act of July 2, 1923, P. L. 987, ceding land in O'Hara Township, Allegheny County, Pa., to the Government of the United States for the care and treatment of disabled soldiers contained language practically verbatim with the statute under consideration. Criminal process was limited to " crimes committed without the area so acquired." Similar language appears in the Act of March 30, 1917, P. L. 29, sec. 2, relative to the Frankford Arsenal in Philadelphia. On the other hand, land ceded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the United States Government for the Carlisle Indian Industrial School Farm in Cumberland County under the Act of February 15, 1901, P. L. 9, gave concurrent jurisdiction to this State over any crime or misdemeanor committed anywhere within this State. The Act of April 21, 1921, P. L. 257, with reference to National Forest Reserves in this State, provides that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shall retain a concurrent jurisdiction with the United States against any person charged with the commission of any crime " without or within said jurisdiction" . It is thus evident that the legislature of this State distinguishes between criminal offenses committed within and without the area of land acquired by the United States Government within the boundaries of Pennsylvania.

The Criminal Code of March 4, 1909, 35 Stat. at L. 1088, as amended by the Act of June 20, 1935, 49 Stat. at L. 394, 18 U.S.C. § 468, provides as follows:

" Whoever, within the territorial limits of any State, organized Territory, or District, but within or upon any of the places now existing or hereafter reserved or acquired, described in section 451 of this title shall do or omit the doing of any act or thing which is not made penal by any laws of Congress, but which if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State, Territory, or District in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force on April 1, 1935, and remaining in force at the time of the doing or omitting the doing of such act or thing, would be penal, shall be deemed guilty of a like offense and be subject to a like punishment." See Act of March 4, 1909, c. 321, sec. 289, 35 Stat. at L. 1145, as amended June 15, 1933, c. 85, 48 Stat. at L. 152, and Act of June 20, 1935, c. 284, 49 Stat. at L. 394. Section 272 of the Act of 1909, supra, provides as follows:

" Third. When committed within or on any lands reserved or acquired for the exclusive use of the United States,...