Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1885-01-14

A transcript from his docket shows th,
record of his proceedings in the case o
tramps in the following form:
Com. of Pennsylvania And now, February
rs. 6, 1884, Henry Nil
Henry Miller, William Ter, William Wilson
Wilson and Thomas and Thomas Riley
Riley. going about the
COSTS. streets Of fMiffiintOwn,
Justice entry 20cibegging for place tO
Commitment 40c lodge over night, and
3 miles 3Ocupon their own con.
Hear'g & dIs'arge 40cfession of having no
Dis'args OF jailor 25c money or fixed place
- of residence, or law
Total, Sl.55clful occupation in the
county Of Juniata, contrary to the act OF
General Assembly, to define and punish
tramps, therefore, they are committed to
the common jail of Juniata county. Com
mitment issued.
And now, February I, 1884, defendants
brought before me by George hivery, Sher-
III, and on hearing each of them testify on
oath, that they do not make a practice of
going about begging or subsisting upon
aims, for the purpose of a living, therefore,
they are discharged. Discharge issued.
In the case of vagrants, the record of bis
proceedings is in the following form:
Com. of ofPennsylvanial Be it remembered
rs. that on this 9TH, day
Joseph Robson. of February, A. D.,
Justice 5OcllSS4, Joseph Robson
is committed before Caleb Parker, Esquire,
one of the Justices of the Peace, in aud for
the county of Juniata, of being an idle Grip
pie vagrant, going about the streets of Mif-
nintown, begging for place to lodge over
night, contrary TO the act of General As
sembly, IN each case made and provided.
Wherenpon, |, the said Justice, do sentence
him, the said Joseph Robson, TO the COM
mon jail of Juniats county, for the term OF
twelve hours at hard labor.
Given under Eay hand and seal, at Miitiin-
town, the day and year aforesaid. Con-
mitpient issued. CALEB PARKEB-Seal.
Tie msteral exceptions to the proceedings
before the trial justice, are, to the effect,
that the amount claimed BY the plaintiff i.
greater than allowed bv the act OF Assembly
and that the county is not liable in the case
of trsmps committed, aud ther, afterw ards
discharged on hearing before the justice,
that is not discharge according 10 law.
Tramps and vagrents are criminals. The
proceedings had in reference TO their COM
mitment are By virtue Of criminal law. At
common law, the King, and in this country,
the Commonwealth, and distinctiysly the
county, pays no costs in criminal proceed
ings. In such cases costs are of statutory
origin. In the case of the county of Frank
liz vs. Conrad, IL c, 3l7 Woodward C. J.
says, s.Ths recovering and payment ofcOsts
in criminal cases are entirely dependant
on statutory regulations in Pennsylvania,
that i; is indispensable for every claimant
to DO able to point to the statute which en-
titles him TO receive what bs claims.
The same thing is repeated in Hunting
don county VS.. the Commonwealth, %
NTH so. Wayne county vs.. Waller, .
Norris 80, see also Borks county VS.. Pile,
II, 493, Com, vs. Harner, 10, C. 44o.
The county of SchuylAill vs.. Reifsnyder, 10
W. 446. In Huntingdon county VS.. Com -
! Supra--Chief Justice Thompson says, "The
\ hardship to witness, for an insolvent de-
| fendant, 20 be obliged to attend the trial
without pay, that may be justified on the
1 ground of duty to the community, and
SO as to the officers cost in issuing and
seryl4g process for witnesses. They take
their Offices with the burden, however, but
! the hardship is greater where the witnesses
are too poor to paw their own expenses.
while attending the court, in obedience to
process. The court ought to have the pow
cr TO provide for such cases, and in seme
counties they do it, bu: it is questionable
/ wh ether the county could be compelled to
! pay this expense. The Legislature ought
| to provide for such cases. A witness may
| be poor and SICK, and far away from the
County Seat, TO compel attendance under
such circumstances would, and offer Is.
shere cruelty. This should be provided
! against mos assuredly. This court cannot
do it. we construe but o not make the law p
Can the Plaintiff point to the statute which
entities hih 10 receive what he claims In
respect 10 lis claim for the commitment OF
tramps we thiuk not. The only statute on
this subject is an act to denne and punish
trsmps, approved, the 30Jh Day OF April
/ 1879. and ihis is silent in regard 10 costs
see p. L. page 30, the Gath section OF the
act of 3lst of March, lSG0-Perdon 1916
-rrovides, that, ..in all cases of convic-
! tion of any crime, all costs shall be paid
| bv the pariv convicted, but when such party
shall have been discharged according to law
without payment of costs, the costs shall
| be paid by the county" Assuming for ths
| present, that the tramps were duly con
vioted and discharged, according to law.
nevertheless, the section ABOVE referred to
applies only TO costs on bills o. Indictment
and not to convictions aRi costs before
| justices. The cases o. the county Of Nor
| Hampton vs. West, Il, l73 and county OF
| Cumberland vs.. Holcomb, II c, 3f9 were
| decided while the act of q Fubru'y 1867 was
in force, and prior to the passage Of the
act of 1861 In Gilkyson IS. County OF
Borks. Norris. %, the point as to the con-
siruction Of the act of 1860 was not raised
ard the case was dicided against the plain :
tiff on the ground that the party convicted
was not lawfully discharged, but the very
point was raised and appears TO have been
decided in the case OF Crawford comfy VS..
Barr. IL Norris. $50. That was a case stat
ed. The facts were that lafayette Barr, a
Justice of the peace, convicted defendant;
charged with vic ating the act st oath March
1878, for the preventin. oftrespassing upon
railway trains, and SO forth, and senieIced
him TO pay fine of s. and costs. and to be
imprisoned IN the county Jail for a period
of 10 days, and the defendant was discharg
ed by direction of the county commission
ers, without fine or costs being paid by the
convict II was objected that the ofense
committed was not a crime within the
meaning of the 6fth sec., Of the act of 1860,
and that the defendant WAS unlawfIllly dis