Case ID: pa-d-c_50/html/0181-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Knight, P. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth v. Keinard
    
      Thomas E. Waters, assistant district attorney, for Commonwealth.
    
      Victor J. Roberts, for defendant.
    
      November 12, 1943.
   Knight, P. J.,

In this case defendant and Paul Boldaz were arrested for assault and battery. They were separately indicted, tried together, and found “not guilty”, but ordered to pay the costs by the verdict of the jury. The offenses charged against the two grew out of the same identical transaction. In taxing the costs in the cases, the clerk, on each bill, included the following:

Verdict fee...................... $4.00
District attorney fee.............. 15.00
Clerk .......................... 5.50
Sheriff ......................... 1.50
Crier............................13
Taxing ..........................50
Petition to quash..........'....... 2.50

Defendant has objected to the inclusion of these items in his bill of costs, because Boldaz has already paid identical items on his bill, and because such duplication is contrary to the prohibition contained in the Act of March 10, 1905, P. L. 35, sec. 1, 19 PS §1293, which reads:

“From and after the passage of this act, it shall be unlawful for any person, .or officer of any township, ward, borough, city or county, within this Commonwealth, in instituting and prosecuting criminal cases, to duplicate any return, complaint, information, indictment, warrant, subpoena, or other writ against any person or persons charged with the commission of any criminal offense or offenses, committed at one and the same time or growing out of one and the same transaction, and when one return, one complaint, one information, one warrant, one subpoena or one other writ can be legally made to serve and promote the due administration of justice.”

We are of the opinion that the exception must be sustained. We have previously decided, in a similar case, that the above act prohibits a justice of the peace from filing two transcripts and taxing two separate sets of costs: Commonwealth v. Hasko et al., 46 D. & C. 359 (1942).

We are unable to see any reason why the decision in that case should not be logically and reasonably applied to this case as the act makes no distinction between transcripts and indictments.

For purposes of convenience, the district attorney may draw separate bills against the parties involved, but double costs should not be assessed thereon.

And now, November 12,. 1943, the exception is sustained, and the items excepted to, as set forth above, are stricken off.