Case ID: pa-super_49/html/0545-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walsh, Appellant, v. Norris.
    
      Justice of the peace — Fees—Act of April 88,1909, P. L. 160.
    
    The Act of April 23,1909, P. L. 160, entitled, “An act to regulate and establish the fees to be charged by justices of the peace, aldermen and magistrates in this commonwealth” does not apply to justices of the peace who were elected prior to the date of the approval of the act.
    Submitted March 5, 1911.
    Appeal, No. 20, March T., 1912, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Dec. T., 1910, No. 588, for defendant on case stated in suit of William P. Walsh v. James M. Norris, County Controller.
    Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Orlady, Head and Porter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Case stated to determine liability of the city of Wilkes-Barre for certain fees. Before Garman, J.
    From the record it appeared that the plaintiff, an aider-man and ex officio justice of the peace, was elected to his office on February 16, 1909, for a term of five years commencing the first Monday in May, 1909. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the sum of $6.75 as fees earned by him under the Act of April 23, 1909, P. L. 160, in a prosecution heard and returned by him on May 9, 1910. The county controller refused to approve the claim and allowed him $4.24, the amount provided by the Act 'of May 23, 1893, P. L. 117.
    The court rendered a judgment for the defendant on the case stated.
    
      Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant on the case stated.
    
      W. P. Walsh and Rush Trescott, for appellant.
    
      William S. McLean, Jr., and James M. Stack, for appellee.
    
      April 15, 1912:
   Pee Curiam,

This case is ruled by our decision in Freiler v. Schuylkill County, 46 Pa. Superior Ct. 58, a case reported since the opinion of the learned judge in the present case was filed. He was clearly right in entering judgment for the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.