Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-24

article upon legislation but that article has
never been supposed to impart to statutes
repeating effect that they would not have
without it. The mandate of section OF arti-
Gle IA, that "the compensation OF county
of11cers shall be regulated by law" was rat
ifed in respect to the Treasurer OF ALE.
ghenv county by the special act OF 1851, ana
its supplement-; and so far as that officer was
concerned the Legislature was not bound to
act, and therefore cannot be presumed con-
trary to the well known oanons of construc-
ton to have intended to act.
The conclusion reached, that the act OF
1861 and its supplements are in force. rem
ders it unnecessary to consider the views
expressed by the learned judge Of tho court
below as to the constitutionality OF the acts
ot Is1s and lSSs but his judgment ss, II must n Dc
plemeat are in force, 1t is proper to say that
his attention docs not appear to have been
called to these acts. The act of juno H.
1873, L. L. 2oS provides that any 10 taNpay-
ers of any county of this Commonwealth
may prosecute any suit or action on behalf
OF such county, or defend it in any suit, pro-
such n statute. and if the Legislature are the
proper judges, it ought surely to be most
literally construed. But it requires no lib
eralfty to hold that prosecuting writ OF
error to a judgment against a county is pros
ecuting a suit OF action in behalf oil such
county, and the appeal in this case Is In
everything but name writ OF error.
Putting the Taxpayers on Record.
1t Is however, urged that the petition OF
the taxpayers should have been presented
to this court rather than to the court below
after final Judgment. There would be much
force in this contention If 1t were discretion
a;y with the court to grant or withhold per-
mission to intervene, but the act docs not
require any fncts to be set forth in the petit
tion from which the court can judge of the
propriety of granting the prayer or give the
court any discretion in the premises except
to require or dispense with q bond to indenl-
Nifty and save harmless the county from all
costs that may accrue subsequent to f1ling
she petition, and by the express terms of
the act that bond is to be approved by the
Court of Common Pleas and filed among its
records. The petition, is, therefore, merely
in the nature of a suggestion Tor the purpose
of getting the taxpayers upon the record.
and IN that view conld with propriety be
filed in the Common Pleas with the bond.
This appeal was taken by ten taxpayers of
the county of Allegheny after Judgment was
payers presented their petition to the court
below, setting forth that the suit had been
commenced on the 9th of December, 1890,
and Judgment entered ten days thereafter,
and that the proper officer of the county
had neglected to take any steps to inquire
into the validity OF the judgment ana in
tended to pay it out of the public funds upon
the expiration of 20 days from its repudia-
tion, and praying the court for leave TO
come in and defend the county and inquire
was thercupon granted to the petitioners to
take such action as was authorized by law.
At the argument the plaintiff moved this
court to quash the appeal for the reason al
legged, that there is no authority in law ior
the interveT tion or the taxpayers The mo-
judgment is reversed and Judgment entered
in favor OF the defendant upon the demurrer