Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1868-04-22
BRADFORD VS.. GOSHEN.
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

and ShuGart OF this Borough, 10 compel
! Goshen township to receive and support one
Nicely Green, and his family, who had be-
come a township charge. The Justices
made an order of removal, deciding that
Goshen township was liable for his support.
From this Judgment the Oyerseers of Goshen
appealed to the Quarter Sessions. Counsel
were employed-Mr Wallace for Bradford,
and Mr.. Swoope for Goshen. The case came
on for argument, when the Court reversed
| the order of the Justices, deciding that
Bradford was the legal place of settlement
of the pauper, and liable for his support.
| The counsel for Bradford township then took
| the case to the Supreme Court on Certiorari,
| and during the winter bill was passed by
the Legislature to give the Supreme Court
power to determine this class of cases on the
IN srits. The Supreme Court held, howev-
| er, that the bill did not meet the case, and
declined to examine it on the merits, affirm
ing the opinion of Judge Linn, by which
Bradford township is made liable for the
support of the pauper.
We append the opinion of the Court, as
delivered by Justice STRONG:
This is an appeal from an order of the
Court of Quarter Sessions, vacating an or
der for removal of a pauper, made by two
Justices of the Peace. It is accompanied
by certiorari to bring up the record 1t is
almost needless to say that in such case no
appeal can be taken to this court. The 10th
Section of the Act OF June Is, 1886, enacts
that ANY person aggrieved by an order of
removal, made by magistrates, may appeal to
the next Court of Quarter Sessions, for the
county from which such poor person may be
removed, and not elsewhere, and il there be
any defect Of form in such an order, the
said court shall cause the same to be amend
| ed, without cost to the party and after such
| amendment, If the same be necessary, shall
| proceed to hear and determine the cause up
on its truth and merits The oath sectionN
enacts that If any magistrate shall refuse
| to grant a warrant or order of removal as
aforesaid, THAT is as described in the 10th
section) 1t shall be lawful for the overseers
aggrieved by such refusal, to appeal to the
next Court of Quarter Sessions, of the
county in which such magistrate resides, who
shall thereupon hear and finally determine
the same" And the 44th section enacts
that IF any person shall be agsrieved by
the judgment of any one or more magis-
| tratcs III pursuance Of this act he may ap-
peal to the next Court of Quarter Sessions,
for the county in which sach magistrates
reside texcept in cases herein specially pro.
vided r},whose decision in all such cases
shall be final and conclusive" 1t is mani
fest from these provisions that the statute
| contemplates no appeal to this court, and 10
| hearing OF the merits, after they have been
| determined by the Court of Quarter Ses-
sions. And SO it has been decided in Mif-
| fin township VS.. Elizabeth, Harris IT.
And in hlauchchunk VS.. Nescopeck, Har-
| ris, 49, the same thing was asserted. The
appeal must therefore be dismissed There
remains then nothing for us to examine but
the regularity of the proceedings, as they
appear in the record brought up by the GER
| tlorari, and of that there is no complaint
Tne single assignment of error is that the
court erred in discharging and vacating the
order of removal when they should. have
confirmed the order and vacated the appeal
We are thus invited to decide this case upon
| the merits. as if it was an appeal to u.s.
| This we cannot do. The certiorari brings
up nothing but the record. We cannot look
outside of that to determine where the set
| tlement of the pauper was, and neither the
evidence returned. nor the opinion Of the
court, justifying the judgment, is any part
of the record. In some of the earlier cases,
It Is true, this court has. on the hearing of
certiorari, considered the evidence alleged
to have been submitted to the Court of Quar-
| ter Sessions, but this erroneous practice has
been corrected. In Overseers of South
Huntingdon vs. Overseers of Fast Hunting.
| don, Watts, 527: it was decided that the
redress we can give is confined to review of
the regularity and legality Of the proceed
! lngs. The same thing was intimated, at
least: IN Shipper VS.. Gaines, Harris, 3S
In Derry VS. Brown, Harris, 800, which
was proceeding under the Act of 1886.
| though not an order of removal and GER
! tiorari, it was said there is no mode provi-
ded in the law by which the facts can be le-
ultimately before this court, that neither the
opinion OF the court nor the evidence given
IN the Quarter Sessions compose any part of
the record, or can be made SO by any
| form OF proceeding pointed out by the law.
| And IN Mauchchunk vs. Nescopeck, 9 Har-
| ris.. 81, it was carefully ruled that the evil
dence is not brought up by certiorari to
the Quarter Sessions, in question of set
tiement, and that though the Judge may in
corporate the facts into his opinion, the legal
effect Is the same, as the opinion is no part
OF tile record. The case distinctly rules that
as to the merits of such cases. the decisions
OF the Quarter Sessions are final and conclu
sive. And this is in accordance with the
general doctrine with regard to writs of GER
| tiorari. The law has furnished no mode bv
which evidence given in the Quarter Ses-
sions or the opinion of the court can be
brought upon the record. No bills of excep
tions have hitherto been allowable At the
present session of the Legislature an attempt
! has indeed been made to assmilate proceed
lngs for the removal of paupers to trials in
Courts OF Common Pleas, so far as to allow
bills of exceptions; but in the record now
! before us no exception appears to have been