The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1895-03-02
THE CASE OF.
KARPOWSKI
His Conviction to Go to the Supreme
Court
VERY NICE POINT OF LAW
The Case is One of Much Importance to
Business Men-A Question of the
Courts Jurisdiction.
VERY NICE POINT OF LAW

question OF jurisdiction, Whlch IS OF
interest % merchants and others, and in
which Shenandoah business man stands
convicted, has just been appeale to the
Supreme Court OF this state. 1t is an
appeal from the Court oil Quarter Sessions
of Northampton county.
Andrew Karpowski, who keeps a store
on West Coal street, in this town, and
| whose place was robbed on Thurs lay
night, is the defendant in the case. Kar.
powski was convicted by jury of his
peers of an offence which the laws of
Pennsylvania declare to be misdemeanor
and the question on appeal is whether the
court in which the conviction was secured
had the requisite jurisdiction.
The prosecutors are Messrs. j. Hay &
Sons, proprietors of a dry goods and job
blng house in Easton. Stephen G. Rey.
nolds, an employe of j. Hay & Sons, called
at Karpowski's notion store on West Coal
street to collect an amount due for bulls
of goods sold him. Karpowski stated
that he had more than enough money in
the Merchants Bank to pay the account,
but that he wanted to use it to
purchase some real estate, and that
he would like to keep the money for thao
purpose; that in case he did not buy the
property he would send a check on the
first of the month for the amount of the
bill. He then gave to Reynolds an ord sr
for more goods amounting to about $3.50.
This order was reduced to writing by
Reynolds, the agent, and on his return to
Easton later in the week wa' submitted
to the firm, together with Karpowskrs
statement as to mis- ability to pay. The
goods were shipped via the Lehigh Valley
Railroad Company's lines, according to
Karpowski's instructions During the trial
of the Case at Easton the cashier OF the
Merchants National Bank of Shenandoah
proved from the books of the bank that
> Karpowskis statement was false and that
instead of having S2SS in bank on tebru
airy %, 1894, he had $3.50. The essential
elements of the offence the prosecution
proved were!that KarpOwski madela state
nenG which was false and fraudulent
that he made it with the intent of decev
ing and that the firm, upon the faith o
the statement, agreed to sell and tn
goods were delivered to the carriers desig
mated by him and no payment was made
On the facts as above stated the ques
tion on appeal was the offence committee
in the jurisdiction of the Y jrthamptol
county courts, or if not entirely and com
pletely committed in their jurisdiction
were any of the constituent elements o
the crime done within the jurisdiction [,
warrant the court in taking jurisdiction
81, ha ri
the offence was wholly committed withii
the jurisdiction on the argument that tht
essential purpose of Karpowsk's falls
statement was not to deceive Reynolds
the salesman, but Hay & Sons Reynold'
employers. The testimony showed tina
Reynolds had no pow to sell that b
could only solicit orders, and atterltakin
them and acquiring information as to tn
If buyers responsibility he submits it to hi
house and they decide whether tn
y order shall be filled. Reynolds, TIA
lr prosecution claims, was simply th
n means by which KRrpowskis stat,
ment was conveyed to Hay & Sons. Ha
IL he, by long distance telephon1, made TIA
statement to Hay & Sons and transmitte
his order, it is claimed, the fact that q
the time he was standing in SchuylH
d county could not deprive the court {
Northampton county of jurisdiction.
The Judge at the trial reasoned "Ha
- Karpowski written a letter to j. Hay
Sons containing the statement as made I
their agent, could it be successfully col
III tended that because the letter was write
y in Schuylkil county the false preuenl
had been made in that county Gould
u be contended that if he had sent a me
senger from Schuylkill county to repe'
verbally the statement which he mad
= through Reynolds to j, Hay & Sons, an
&c it had been so repeated to them by h
&c messenger, and upon the strength of tn,
&c the goods had been delivered TO a commC
- carrier, addressed to Karpowski, that Il
10 offence was not completed within tn
jurisdiction Whether the messeng
- was one employed by himself, or one en-
ployed by J. Hay & Sons could make /
lc difference"
Both sides in the case say that q
Supreme Court ought to settle this que
10 tion of jurisdiction. The prosecution sa
that not only the bench and the bar, bl
the merchants of the Commonwealth
= ought to know whether they can safe
deal with a man in an adjoining count
II whether when by making false represe
taJions to induce them to part with the
" goods, man succeeds in cheating Al
defrauding them, no punishment can
10 meted out for such violation of the pen
code.
Greatest free lunch In the state az ~
= ~