The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-07-13
PHILADELPHIA. July 70.
preme court today rendered nm


n important decision in the cases
" of the commonwealth ex. rel.
Attorney General vs.. Samuels ct al.,
appellants from the common pleas
court of SchuylkiIl county The opin-
ion in full follows:
The act of July s, 1893, p. j. 393 while
it does not in express terms abolish the Of
fee Of county auditors in counties having
more than l5U, ,0O0 Inhabitants, does so in
effect, transferring their duties and pow
ers to county controller This is the
manifest intent Of the act, as gathered
from all its provisions, and as especially
indicated in section l which directs the
election Of n controller 'fn place of
county auditor" and section 10 which
expressly directs how the duties thereto
fore devolved on the county auditors shall
thereafter be performed Such moreover,
even without an express legislative intent,
would be the result Of the act. The
powers, authority and jurisdiction Of an
office are the essence Of the Office itself and
are inseparable from it. To take them away
totally is to DESTROY the office. Com V. S.
Gamble, 3 Pa. 343; Reid vs.. Smoulter, 12S
Pa. 3.4.
The title Of tho act under consideration
is, 'an act creating the office of county
controller in counties OF this common
wealth containing l50C inhabitants and
over, prescribing his duties" In this there
is no indication of the purpose aud effect
of the act to abolish the Office OF county
auditors. So far as appears in the
title, the act is merely cumulative.
in providing an additional county
officer. lt is true that the consti-
tuition IN enumerating county officer, art.
II, Section |, puts the two Offices together
in the dlsjunctive, auditors or Coutrol-
ers, and tbat those who are familiar with
the duties OF controllers, as existing in
Philadelphia and Allegheny would know
that they are mainly the same as those OF
auditors in other counties, and, therefore,
that the creation OF the Office of coptroller
was likely to Interfere with, II not to Gbol-
ISL the other. but this is not the notice
which the constitution requires the title
OF the act to give Of its subject. Tie OBJ.
ject OF that requirement is that legis-
lators, and Others interested, shall
receive direct notice in immediate
connection with the act itself. Of its sub
iect, so that they may know or be put
upon injury as to its provisions and heir
effect. Suggestions or infGrences which
may be drawn from knowledge dehors tho
language used, are not enough The con-
stitution requires that the notice shall be
contained in the title itself. In re, Road
IN PheniXville, 100 Pa, a; Ridge Av. r.
f. Co. VS.. Philadelphia, 124 Pa, 2l9: Phil.
adelphia vs.. Ridge Av. R. w. Co., 142 Pa,
434
AS this defect in the title is decisive of
the unconstitutionality of the entire act, it
is not necessary to discuss the other OBJ
jections raised to it. Judgment reversed.
RoCKAFELLows SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
Judge Fell handed down the opiaion
Of the court in the case of the COM
monwealth VS.. II, v Rockafelow. in
which the judgment of the quarter
sessions of Luzerno county in sentence
ing the defendant TO two years for
embezzIement is flirmed. In disposng
of tle case Judgo Fell said:
The only exceptions that required notice
relate to the sulliciency Of the indictment,
which was drawn under the act of NAV O.
1889, The act provides that any banker
who shall receive money from depositor
with the knowledge that he 0hel banker)
is AT the time insolvenG shall be guilty OF
embezzlement. The Indictment cnarges
thai the defendant, being banker, and
knowing that ho was insOlvent received
money from a dcpositor. TIE averment
in the indictment follows the language of
the net, and is in substantial compliance
with the rules of criminal pleading.
The offence clearly and distinctly defined
is the fraudulent receipt of the money Of
depositor. The ncJ is not to be nulli.
fed because this is called ombezzlement,
and by construction which reads into
the provisions the definition of that Of
fence. The word is not well chosen but
the intention is clear. The case was care.
fully tried aud properly submitted. The
Judgment is confirmed.