Case Name: Hardwick Automobile License Case
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1944-01-03
Citations: 348 Pa. 266
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 95
Parties: Hardwick Automobile License Case.
Judges: Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson and Stearns, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 348
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Hardwick Automobile License Case.
Argued. November 30, 1943.
Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson and Stearns, JJ.
E. A. DeLaney, with him George W. Keitel, Deputy Attorneys General, Abraham, J. Levy, Special Deputy Attorney General, and James H. Duff, Attorney General, for appellant.
Harry L. Clark, for appellee.
January 3, 1944:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Patterson,
On May 27, 1942, Lew Hardwick was arrested for exceeding the statutory speed limit for a tractor-trailer. Hearing before a magistrate was dispensed with, the fine being paid by money order. Subsequently, after hearing before a representative of the Secretary of Revenue, on August 3, 1942, Hardwick's operating privileges were suspended for a period of ninety days, beginning October 19, 1942.
Upon appeal to the court below from the action of the Secretary, Hardwick established that he had been operating a truck for twelve years; that he had driven a tractor-trailer every day for the past six years; that he was traveling at a speed of 45 to 47 miles per hour; and, that he paid a fine of $12.50 to prevent the expense of appearing at the hearing. The court below concluded that the "case does not appear so grave as to warrant a double penalty" and sustained the appeal. The Commonwealth took this appeal.
We said in Handwerk Automobile License Case, 348 Pa. 263, decided this day: "The obvious intent of the legislature was to vest in the several courts of common pleas broad discretionary power . In the exercise of the broad power thus conferred by the legislature, the courts are to administer justice according to the evidence and circumstances presented, and the action of a lower court will not be disturbed except for manifest abuse of discretion."
There is nothing in the record requiring this Court to hold that there has been a manifest abuse Of discretion by the court below.
Order of the court below is affirmed. Costs to be paid by the Commonwealth.
Act of May 1, 1929, P. L. 905, as amended by the Act of April 15, 1941, P. L. 17 (75 P.S. 501).