Case ID: monaghan_1/html/0119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Allegheny Co. v. Commonwealth.
    The Act of Assembly of May 15,1850, providing that fines inflicted under the Sunday Act of April 22,1794, shall he paid into the treasury of the commonwealth, is not repealed, by implication, hy the Act of April 26,1855, providing for the payment of flues and penalties, collected hy aldermen and justices of the peace, to the counties of Philadelphia and Allegheny.
    Oct. 31, 1888.
    Error, No. 170, Oct. T. 1888, to C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff in an interpleader, at April T. 1888, No. 99.
    In February, 1888, assumpsit was brought by the Commom wealth against an alderman of the city of Pittsburgh, to recover $430, being the amount of fines and penalties collected by him, for violation of the Sunday law of April 22, 1794. The County of Allegheny also claimed the fund, and the alderman, having obtained leave, paid the fund into court. The court entered a rule on the County to interplead. In obedience to the rule, the County appeared and interpleaded. After argument, the court entered judgment for the Commonwealth, in the following opinion, by Ewing, P. J.:
    “ The money concerning which this dispute arises was collected by an alderman of the city of Pittsburgh, as penalties for violations of the first section of the Act of 1794, for the suppression of vice and immorality, etc. The penalties were imposed for the performance of ordinary worldly business on Sunday.
    “ By the original Act, the penalty was fixed at four dollars. By the Act of April 26,1855, § 3, P. L. 321, local to Allegheny county, the penalty was increased to twenty-five dollars for each offence. The 6th section of the Act of 1794 provided that the penalty should go one-half to the informer and one-half to the poor district where the offence was committed. The local Act of 1855 is silent on that point. .
    “ The 6th section of the Act of Assembly, approved May 2 5, 1850, P..L. 773, entitled ‘A supplement to the Act entitled an Act to create a sinking fund ’ is as follows: ‘ Section 6. That the penalty inflicted by the first section of the Act of Assembly, entitled an Act for the prevention of vice and immorality, etc., shall hereafter be paid into the treasury of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for use of the sinking fund.’ Under this section of the Act, which is conceded to be the general law of the state, the Commonwealth claims the fund, and has brought this suit against the aider-man to recover the penalties collected by him. The county of Allegheny also claims the money, and by interpleader has been made a party defendant. The alderman paid the money into court; and the real contest is now between the Commonwealth and the county.
    “ The county of Allegheny claims the fund under a local Act of Assembly, approved April 26, 1885, P. L. 315, entitled ‘An Act relating to fines, forfeitures and penalties in the city of Philadelphia and the county of Allegheny,’ as follows: ‘ That, from and after the passage of this Act, the mayors of the cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Allegheny, the burgesses of the several boroughs of Allegheny county, as also the aldermen of said cities, and the justices of the peace of said county, shall make a statement, under oath, on the first Monday of April, July, October and January in each year, of all the fines, forfeitures and penalties received by them under the provisions of the several Acts of Assembly of this Commonwealth, to the respective treasurers of said city of Philadelphia and county of Allegheny, and shall at the same time pay over to said treasurers the amount of said fines, forfeitures and penalties for the use of said city or county as the case may be; and, should any of said officers fail to furnish said statement and pay over said amount so collected and so required as aforesaid, the party so offending shall forfeit and pay to the said city of Philadelphia or the county of Allegheny, as the case may be, the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, to be recovered by actions of debt in the court of common pleas in the county of Allegheny or Philadelphia, as the case may be. All laws or parts of laws inconsistent with the above are hereby repealed.5
    “ If this local Act takes from the state and local municipalities and private prosecutors all the fines, forfeitures and penalties, recoverable before a justice of the peace, which, by previous statutes, had been given to them, then this contention must be decided in favor of Allegheny county.
    
      “We are of the opinion that this local statute was not intended to and does not change the direction of such fines, penalties and forfeitures, but that the object was to provide a method by which a correct report and prompt payment of such fines, forfeitures and penalties as the city or county was entitled to under existing laws could be enforced on the magistrates collecting them. If this be not the correct interpretation of the Act, it has been misinterpreted in this county continually since its passage.
    
      “ If the contention of the county be the true interpretation, the Act would give to the county all the penalties collected from officers charging illegal fees, under the Act of 1814, where the penalty of fifty dollars is given to the party injured. The language of that Act is ‘ shall forfeit and pay,’ the precise language of the Act of 1194 and the 3d section of the local Act of 1855, above referred to, which increases the penalty from four dollars to twenty-fivé dollars.
    
      “ The legislative intent can be further implied from cotemporary legislation. On the same day on which this local Act was passed, on which the county relies, was approved another local Act for Allegheny county, found at page 321 of the Pamphlet Laws, giving magistrates full power to enforce the Act of Assembly, approved February 26, 1855, P. L. 53, entitled ‘ An Act to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday,’ and providing that these officers shall be subject to the proviso in the 2d section of the Act of February 26, 1855. Turning to that proviso, in the 2d section referred to, we find it to be that ‘it shall be a misdemeanor in'offied for any such mayor, burgess or justice of the peace to neglect to render to the said guardians of the poor' and prosecutor the amount of such penalty (one-half to each) within ten days from the payment of the same.’ The two statutes are absolutely irreconcilable with the present contention of the county; they are entirely consistent with the interpretation which we give to the Act requiring magistrates to make quarterly returns to the county treasurer of fines, forfeitures and penalties collected by them (for the county). These are but a small part of the incongruities and inconsistencies that would follow if the claim of the county be held to be valid.”
    
      The assignments of error specified the action of the court, 1, in entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff; 2, in not -entering judgment in favor of the county of Allegheny; and, 3, in awarding the money in court to the plaintiff.
    
      G. H. Geyer, for plaintiff in error.
    The Act of 1855 repeals § 6 of the Act of 1850, because that section is inconsistent with this Act. ' ' ' :
    The Act of 1814 provides that the officers shall forfeit and pay to the party injured fifty dollars, to be recovered as debts of the same amount are recoverable. This gives a right of actiop to the party injured. It is a civil action for his own benefit, and .over his judgment the alderman or officer before whom suit is brought has no control. Our interpretation of the Act of 1855 could not .affect this Act. •
    The two Acts passed on April 26, 1855, are not inconsistent with each other; one may be made an exception or proviso to the other.
    
      Wm. Yost, with him Robert S. Frazer and Jno. Rebman, for defendant in error.
    There is no repugnancy between the Act of 1855 and § 6 of the Act of 1850, and therefore no implied repeal. Sifred v. Com., 104 Pa. 179.
    For many years the magistrates, in the large cities in Philadelphia and Allegheny counties, had been collecting an enormous amount of small fines, and appropriating them to their own use. The vaiiety of statutes under which these fines and penalties were imposed, the large number of fines collected, and the smallness of each fine, made it impossible for the county and city treasurers to secure their collection from the magistrates by means of ordinary actions at law, and there was no legislation, whatever, on the subject. The passage of the Act of 1855 was thereupon secured. An •examination of it will disclose that it simply enacts a system of quarterly returns to the county and city treasurers, by the magistrates, under oath, of the fines and penalties collected under existing laws, and due to said treasurers, and enjoins the prompt payment of the amount shown by the returns, under a severe penalty.-
    The system of returns requires a disclosure, under oath!,.,of t^xe 'transactions of the magistrate’s office, which it would bé! iifi^rácticable otherwise to obtain. The injunction to pay over the amount due “ at the same time ” under pain of a severe penalty, secures the collection without the delay and expense of a suit at law.
    Jan. 7, 1889.
   Per Curiam,

We concur in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below, and therefore affirm his judgment.

Judgment affirmed. A. B. W.