The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1893-04-18

quire the returns of the election Of township
clerk of the Court Of Quarter Sessions of the
proper county, instead of the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas as provided in
the Act above cited. From this reference to
the Acts of Assembly it appears that by the
general laws then in force the court was not
required to count the vote in boroughs, or in ,
fact it has never been done in this county
under these acts, and that in fact the legal
requirements are fulfilled, so far as borough
elections are concerned, by filing the returns
with the Clerk Of Quarter Sessions of the
proper county. The language used may be
explained by the fact that in municipalities
other than 0oroughs and townships the court
was then required to count the vote.
Whether this requirement satisfactorily
explains the use of this expression or not, the
use Of it cannot reasonably be given such
force as to repeal the law as declared in the
two statutes above cited which were both
passed for the express purpose of establishing
the practice on this subject as to borough and
township elections,
No expression is pointed out in these Acts
as comforting upon the Court the power to
assume jurisdiction of a contest bat the
claim is founded upon the theory that as the
returns are brought by the d rection of the
law itself into the hands of the Clerk of the
Quarter Sessions court for the purpose of
making a record in that court, the court by
the common law would have control of this
record to determine its truth or falsity to the
extent of a determination Of the legality and
regularity of the election. For such an in
ference no authority is cited. On the other
hand in the case Of Auchenbach VS.. Seibert,
100 Pa, 40, the Supreme Court have re-
Gently said, in speaking of the jurisdiction
of the Court of Quarter Sessions, at is
only in contested election cases that the
Court has jurisdiction, and as this juris
diction is not one of common law i5 cannot
be extended by implication beyond the pre-
scriptions of the Act in which it originates"
And by way of further illustration of the
reluctance of courts to transcend the limits Of
jurisdiction as defined by statute we refer to
Hulseman ct. al, VS.. Rennetal, Al Pa, 401;
Collins case, ? CIR, 214; Re Election 18th
ward, l w. N. c., ia; skerrett's case, 2
Parsons Eq. Cases, p. 500.
Whether the omission to provide for a con-
3 test of such an election was intentional OF
} simply overlooked we do not know, but in
/ this connection it is to be observed that the
municipality is not left entirely unprotected
? The Act provides That whenever the debt
0 of any county, city, borough, etc, shall be
equal to seven per centum upon the assessed
e valuation Of taxable property, as fixed by the
S last preceding assessed valuation therein, it
0 shall be tmiaiefui to increase the same, and all
p. such increase shall be roid and aay obligation
issucd for such increase, or any part thereof
e shal be Of no bindiHg force upon stch MUM
S cipalltg; and each of the officers thereof
wilfully authorizing such increase, or exc.
t cutting any obligation therefor, shall be guilty
0 of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
J thereof, shall be fined not exceeding 10000
S and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding
one year, or either, at the discretion Of the
Court trying the same"
However that may be this Court seems tC
be without jurisdiction to determine the
o, question raised by this petition.
i some of the other exceptions require
y notice. The 4th exception claims that the
petition is defective in not stating wherein
c the election was undue and illegal, not stat
d ing the facts showing that it was illegal
e Judge King in Skerretts case, ? Parsons 500
d thought that this in itself was a fatal defect
G The Act requires the affidavit to state tina
It "the return thereof" is not correct Tn,
e affidavit in this case does not follow the act
~It.states that the return thereof being iHega
is Incorrect"
The 9Th and 18th exceptions seem to b
IS mere irregularities and to practically conform
d to The Act. The 5th is disposed of by tn.
conclusion stated above IN the question o
n jurisdiction.
AS the allegations made against the regu
s.; larity and legality of the election are befor
Il the Court in another form of procedure il
IS view Of our CONCLUSION we refrain from an!
Il discussion of them in this connection.
d And now, April l7th, 1898, the allow
S; petition and all proceedings thereon arr
Is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
# BY THE COURT.
a And now April 18th, 1898, d. Q. Henning
IS Attorney for petitioners, asks for an excep
ton. The court grant the same and seal
e bill.
MASON WEIDMAN.
F Additional Law Judge.