Year: 1869

With the law as stated by the Court no lawyer can,
as the counsel in this case have not contend, and
no fault can be found. A careful and anxious ex.
animation Of the evidence has satisfied the Court OF
SAINT to discover, for the sake of these
young men, that the Jury had been mistaken; that
they the Prisoners at least, had not been guilty of
us to declare that the verdict is most lust and
righteous one and that beyond reasonable doubt
the prisoners are in deed and in fact guilty in
ner and form as they stand indicted


AS this motion was heard by myself alone,
thought IL but just TO the prisoners 10 submit every
reason assigned in support OF the motion and the
arguments of counsel TO my colleagues This case
has therefore, received protracted and very care
ful consideration by the whole Court, and am au-
thorized to say that we all concur in the conclusion
stated in this opinion.


The motion for rule for a new trial is overruled


The sentence announced above was then imposed
by the court after which the prisoners were re-
moved to the Pententary under guard OF the police
the van being followed by an ambulance containing
Chief Mulhoand and a squad Of ofice, to provide
against any attempt at escape or rescue.


Court of Common PIeas-.Judge Ludlow.


In the matter of the Twelfth and sixteenth Sts Pas
senger Railway Company, the Court this morning
refused to grant the mandamus compelling them to
lay the Nicoson pavement but enioined them not to
lay any pavement which had not the cubical stones


In making this decision Judge Ludlow said:-


That the Legislature have unqualified constitu-
tonal power ITO take possession Of the streets OF
incorporated city, and appropriate them to the pur
pose OF railroad either directly or through COM
pany created 1or the purpose" mas been so OFTEN
settled, that the question is no longer open one
See City vs.. Empire X. X. Co, Legal InteliiJencer,
July 2, 1869.


The charter OF this company is therefore the law
OF the case though It's provisions to be strictly
construed


The city, however, has its clearly defined rights
and where these exercised in subordnation the
expressed will of the Legislature, and otherwise
according to settled law, these rights must be
forced


Ordinances must, however, not conflict with any
constitutional law upon the statute books and they
must not be unreasonable.


The Legislature, by the act of April II, 1865 de-
cared that the city shall have power to regulate
passenger railway companies unless authorized so
to do by the laws Of this Commonwealth, expressly,
in terms relating to passenger railway companies in
the city of Philadelphia; PrOUidcd that nothing
tanned in this act shall be construed to release the
said companies from keeping in good repair the
to the city the additional cost OF construction
sewers"


Here is an act which directly conflicts with the
power claimed by Councils in the ordinance OF 1869,
and when, in this instance, we look at the peculiar
provisions of this charter, under which defendants
exercise their rights, we cannot doubt that in this
the right Of the city to enforce the ordinance OF
Oct 81 1862 has been taken away, for not untl the
railways shall be laid and used by running passenger
thereon" shall the said company be subject to
the ordinances of the city of Philadelphia regulating
the running of passenger railway cars" and this
company may lay their railway "without the con-
sent of the City Councils of Philadelphia"