The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-08-14

Z. N NOOne trauJeu.
The following opinion was handed
down Monday by Judge Edwards in the
matter of Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania, ex. rel. James r. Noone, alder
man of the Eighteenth ward. against
John p. Kelly, former alderman of
the ward:
The relator in this case filed his petit
ton praying for a writ of alternative
mandamus to compel the respondent TO
deliver to him. the reator. the dockets
and papers pertaining TO the office OF al
dcrnan of the Eighteenth ward OF the
city OF Scranton. or to show cause why
he should not do so. The respondent
was the immediate predecessor of the re-
lator in said Office. The respondent an
swers in substance that he Is willing to
hand to his successor the "cvil docket
so-called and all papers pertaining TO
civil cases. and that, in fact he has Of
fered the docket and papers to the rela-
tor, who has refused them; but. that he.
the respondent. IS not bound to deliver
over the papers, docket. or records per-
tanning to criminal cases. There are no
questions of fact in dispute We shall
treat the answer of the defendant as a
return to the ma amus. we cannot ma
among the files a demurrer to the return.
had been filed. Let the relator file n for
NAL demurrer so that there may be a
proper issue before us.
The act of March 90 1910. section four.
Is SIN. 16D, provides that all proceedings
in civil causes "had before the justice,
shall be entered at large by him. in
docket or book to be kept by him for
that purpose When the term of jus
ticc or alderman has expired, the act OF
June q. 1899. section ten. provides that he
shall deliver over his docket and like
papers to the person who shall be elected
to succeed him in said ward borough or
township The argument made by re-
spondents counsel is to the effect that an
alderman is not bound to deliver over to
his successor in office any docket other
than the one the law directs him to keep.
viz: docket containing the record of
civil causes, and all papers pertaining to
these causes and this the respondent Is
willing and has offered to do.
KIND OF DOCKET.
IT, says the counsel. the act of 1910 de-
scribeS the kind of Il docket which an
alderman must keep. and the act of 1879
directs him to deliver this docket to his
SUCCESSOR. he should not be compelled to
hand over any thing else without express
legislative authority. And counsel goes
further and contends tnat if by any legs-
lation subsequent to 1899 an alderman Is
required 10 keep OlneE RECORDS lIEtH tIOSe
prescribed by the act of 1910. the manda-
tory provision of the act of 1899 could not
be applied to the additional records We
think the argument is moro specious than
correct. We shall proceed to state some
of the reasons which induce us to adopt
a different view.
/. The records of proceedings in the Of
flee of justice of the peace. or of an
alderman, are of a judicial and public
nature. The Office is not only of ancient
and honorable origin but it is provided
for by our constitution. 1t is an import
ant part of the judicial system of the
commonwealth. The official records of
the office cannot be considered as the per-
sonal property or Derquisites of the oc-
cupant When the alderman goes out of
Office his records. on account of their
public and judicial character. should he
delivered to his successor This view of
the matter Il; not conclusive to the
contention in this case but We give 1t
as one of the reasons for the belief that
the act of 1850 providing for the trans
fer of the docket and like papers. in its
spirit and legislative scope. is broad
enough TO include the records relating to
criminal cases.
. This construction of the act of 1890
is in harmony with the reason of the law,
because it meets the demands of con-
veniencc and necessity. That the records
of criminal cases kept by an alderman
whose term of office has expired are often
needed subsequently. either as evidence
I'm other cases or as the basis of other or
further proceedings, is evident These
records may be needed in habeas corpus
cases: or, in suits on forfeited recog-
nizances: in the determination of
pleas of former acquittal or conviction in
cases where ii might be claimed the Of
fenses Were the subjects of final proceed
ings before the alderman under the act
of May l, 1861. P l.. S62) or in prosecu-
tions for perjury. or in many other ways
that do not occur to us now. So that on
the ground of convenience and necessity.
the records should he in the custody Of
the alderman then in Office. retiring
alderman may die, or he may move from
the state and take his papers with him
beyond the reach of process or the rec
ords may be scattered and lost; but these
inconveniences may be avoided by the
transfer of all official records and papers
to the successor in the office.
MUST KEEP DOCKET.
3. But it is not necessary to rely on the
general principles stated. A close exam
nation OF the acts of assembly already
referred to convinces us that the whole
matter is sufficiently within the grasp of
the letter of the law. As already stated.
the act of 1910 provides that the Justice
shall keep a docket in which shall be en-
tered the proceedings in civil cases. As
far as we can find, this was the only
docket the justice was or is required to
keep. In conenction with criminal busi-
ness, the next reference we find to
docket Is in the act of May, 1861 Up. l..
6S2) relating to criminal jurisdiction in
certain counties, extended to Luzerne
county In 1866, and therefore In force in
Iackawanna county.
Section three of this act provides that If
defendant shall demand jury trial,
the Justice shall make an entry to that
effect upon "his docket" A similar re-
ference to "hs docket Is found i'm the
supplementary act of 1862 Up. l.. 273. The
general law of June II, 1885. (P, l.. llO),
provides that at shall be the duty of all
alderman justices of the peace and com