Case ID: pa_146/html/0546-01.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

COMMONWEALTH v. W. M. GILLESPIE. Commonwealth v. Albert Varner.
    APPEALS BY DEFENDANTS FROM THE COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
    Argued November 2, 1891
    Decided January 4, 1892.
    1. The question whether the pumping of an oil well oil Sunday was a work of necessity, within the meaning of the exception of § 1, act of April 22, 1794, 3 Sm. L. 177, was a question of fact; and, having been found against the defendants by the court below, the finding cannot be reviewed on the merits by the Supreme Court.
    2. On certiorari, the case cannot be reviewed on the evidence ; and the act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 321, under which the fine of twenty-five dollars was imposed for a violation of the act of April 22, 1794, in Allegheny county, does not provide for an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Quarter Sessions.
    
    Before Paxson, C. J., Green, Clark, Williams and Mitchell, JJ.
    Nos. 226, 227 October Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, Nos. 34, 35 March Term 1891, Q. S.
    On May 19,1891, appeals were allowed, from the summary convictions of W. M. Gillespie and Albert Varner before an alderman, on informations charging, severally, that the defendants, “ on May 10, 1891, the said day being the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, did and performed worldly employment and business in said county, the same not being the work of necessitj’- or charity,” in violation of the act of April 22,1794, 3 Sm. L. 177, “ in pumping oil and water, and causing the same to be pumped, at the well known as the Gillespie well No. 3,” in Robinson township- It was shown that W. M. Gillespie was one of the owners of said well, and Albert Varner an employee.
    
      After hearing and argument, the court, White, J., on June 22, 1891, filed a decision printed in full in Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 10 Pa. C. C. R. 89, finding in each case, “ from the evidence that the pumping of the well in this case, on Sunday, May 10, 1891, was not a work of necessity in the meaning of the exception in the act of April 22, 1794, and that the defendant is guilty, in pumping said well, of performing a worldly employment and business on that Sunday, contrary to the provisions of said act of assembly. ” Formal orders having been entered, adjudging the defendants to pay: the costs before the magistrate, the fines' of twenty-five dollars "each by him imposed,* and the costs in the Quarter Sessions, the defendants took these appeals to this court, assigning the said orders for error.
    
      Mr. J. S. Ferguson (with him Mr. P. G. Knox, Mr. John R. Harbison and Mr. E. G. Ferguson), for the appellants.
    . As to “ works of necessity, ” counsel cited:. McGatrick v. Mason, 4 Ward. (Ohio) 573; Flagg v. Millbury, 4 Cush. 243; Wilkinson v. State, 59 Ind. 416 (26 Am. Rep. 84); Manhattan Co. v. French, 12 Abb. N. C. 446; Carver v. State, 69 Ind. 64 (35 Am. Rep. 205); Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 34 Pa. 409; Sparhawk v. Railway Co., 54 Pa. 449.
    
      Mr. William Yost, for the appellee.
    Counsel cited: Commonwealth v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407; Jones v. Andover, 92 Mass. 18; Commonwealth v. Nagle, 117 Mass. 142; Commonwealth v. Boston, 117 Mass. 64; Commonwealth v. Williams, 1 Pears. 61; Handy v. Publishing Co., 41 Minn. 188; Sparhawk v. Railway Co., 54 Pa. 407, 408; Johnston v. Commonwealth, 22 Pa. 108.
    
      
       See foot-note, ante 111.
    
    
      
       Nor docs the act of April 17, 1876, P. L. 29, relating to appeals to the Quarter Sessions in cases of summary convictions before magistrates.
    
    
      
       See act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 321.
    
   Per Curiam :

Whether pumping an oil well on the Sabhath is a work of necessity, within the meaning of the act of April 22, 1794, is a question of fact; and it has been decided against the defendants by the learned judge of the court below. It is idle, and a great waste of time, to bring such questions here upon a certiorari. The act of April 26,1855, P. L. 321, under which the fines were imposed in these cases, does not provide for an appeal; and upon the writ of certiorari, as we have said in at least a hundred cases, we cannot review the evidence.

Judgment affirmed. 
      See § 3. act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 322.