Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1918-03-08
CLAIM SHORT WEIGHT
ACT IS RESTRICTED
rContinued from FIRST Page.l

in a case heard in habeas corpus
proceedings before Judge ). }. Nj.
McCarrell to-day. City Solicitor
John E. Fox asking the Court to
make a ruling. Judge McCarrell
then made an order dismissing the
suits against G.. Frank Milleisen, a
local coal dealer, and said an opinion
would be given in writing on the
points raised in argument so that
an appeal could be taken TO the
higher courts if desired.
The decision on this question by
the local court will be of interest
throughout the entire state, as dur
! ing the last few years inspectors OF
weights and measures have brought
scores of prosecutions and secured
many convictions by charging deal
ers under the act with giving short
weight.
Restricts Prosecutions
District Attorney Michael p.
Stroup in constructing the weight
and measure law of 1911 and the
1913 amendment, declared dealers
cannot be prosecuted if they give
short weight in selling a commodity,
but can be held if they use a weight
or measure which is not standard or
| has been condemned by the inspec-
tor.
If this construction is placed on
| the act, city officials declare, no
citizen can bring a criminal prosecu-
ton against a dealer if they receive
short weight or measure. Attorneys
! in speaking of the phrasing of the
act contended citizens would have
an opportunity for redress by bring
ing a civil action against a dealer
to recover the amount he had not
/
! Paul A. Kunkel represented Mr..
Milleisen in the habeas corpus ac-
ton. the second to be brought this
week, as on Monday the Court dis
missed two similar suits because the
linformations were defective. 1t de-
veloped to-day that no warrant had
! been served in the second prosecu-
| ton at the time court convened, but
the facts were reviewed.
Mr.. Kunkel in his argument intiE
mated the suits against Mr.. Milleisen
were only brought to persecute the
dealer and that once case had been
dismissed by habeas corpus action
no new prosecution could be brought
on the same charge.
Solicitor Fox, however, defended
Inspector Harry d. Reel by declar-
ing the action against Mr.. Milleisen
was only brought because Mr.. Reel
was doing his duty by the citizens OF
the city, and said anyone violating
the provisions of the weight and
measure act should be punished. He
cited a Massachusetts law practi-
cally the same as the Pennsylvania
act and gave a ruling of the Su
preme Court of that state.
The Courts Dictum
Mr.. Stroup's argument was based
lNsI ~ Of I,A
laws of this state in criminal prose-
cutions and was given after Mr.. Fox
asked Judge McCarrell to rule on
this point. The order which was Civ
en- from the bench in disposing of
the proceedings follows:
"By the Court: An information
has been made against the relator
in this case charging him with
violation of the act of July "a, 1913,
p. l.. $50; a similar information was
made against the same relator some
/ days since. in pursuance of which
writ of habeas corpus was awarded
by the Court, and upon a hearing
thereon the relator was discharged
from custody for the reason that no
indictable offense was charged in the
information.
1.-THE present information differs
but little from the information then
before the court. The question
raised is in regard to the proper con-
struction of the act just quoted. We
are of the opinion from the slight
examination we have been able to
make that this act does not provide
for prosecutions under facts such as
exist in this case for a criminal Of
fense; and we. therefore, discharge
the relator under the writ pending.
We will examine the point raised by
this record carefully at the earliest
possible moment and put in writing
our reasons for the conclusion just
announced so that if an appeal is
desired it can be taken and the
matter determined by the appellate
courts"
HEARING POSTPONED
Charged with keeping their stores
open on Sunday, Alderman Hoverter