Commonwealth v. Henderson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Henderson

173 A. 868, 113 Pa. Super. 348, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 167

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 12, 1934

DocketAppeal 106

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 173 A. 868 (Commonwealth v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Henderson, 173 A. 868, 113 Pa. Super. 348, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 167 (Pa. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

At a court of quarter sessions held in the county of Venango, it appears that a certain Margaret Henderson was on trial and not having counsel, the court Judge F. L. Harvey, specially presiding, appointed George M. O’Hora, Esquire, to defend her. We infer from the motion made and the petition presented, which need not he set out here, that at the time Mr. O’Hora was appointed, there was an understanding between the court and him that he was to receive $25 for his services. Afterwards the court made an order upon the county commissioners of Venango County to pay the sum of $25 to Mr. O’Hora.

The commissioners declined to pay the amount and there was a petition presented for an attachment on them for failure to comply with the court’s order and Judge McCracken, who was then presiding, made the following order:

“The authority of the county commissioners is limited by statute and can he enlarged and extended only by legislative action and the courts are without authority to authorize payment of demands upon the county except when empowered so to do by appro *350 priate legislation. No authority has been found, although diligent search has been made, and none cited warranting the order made by the court and we are therefore reluctantly compelled to conclude that said order was made without authority and is therefore void. ’ ’

It is hardly necessary to add anything to the order of the court. The case is ruled by Wayne County v. Waller, 90 Pa. 99. In that case, a member of the bar expended some money and performed' professional services for a prisoner indicted for murder. The facts were submitted to the court on a case stated and it held that such services must be regarded as an incident of the official position, that lawyers as officers of the court take such offices com onere. “One of these burthens, which custom has recognized, is the gratuitous service rendered to a poor prisoner, at the suggestion of the court. ’ ’ In case of murder this has been changed by the Act of 1907, P. L. 31, 19 PS 784.

As the appellant can point to no act of assembly giving the court power to allow such compensation, none can be paid. That no appeal was taken from the order of the court directing the amount to be paid, does not affect the matter. The commissioners had not their day in court. Moreover, the court having no power, the order was void and its enforcement could be therefore prevented at any time.

The judgment is affirmed, the appellant to pay the costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

At a court of quarter sessions held in the county of Venango, it appears that a certain Margaret Henderson was on trial and not having counsel, the court Judge F. L. Harvey, specially presiding, appointed George M. O’Hora, Esquire, to defend her. We infer from the motion made and the petition presented, which need not he set out here, that at the time Mr. O’Hora was appointed, there was an understanding between the court and him that he was to receive $25 for his services. Afterwards the court made an order upon the county commissioners of Venango County to pay the sum of $25 to Mr. O’Hora.

The commissioners declined to pay the amount and there was a petition presented for an attachment on them for failure to comply with the court’s order and Judge McCracken, who was then presiding, made the following order:

“The authority of the county commissioners is limited by statute and can he enlarged and extended only by legislative action and the courts are without authority to authorize payment of demands upon the county except when empowered so to do by appro *350 priate legislation. No authority has been found, although diligent search has been made, and none cited warranting the order made by the court and we are therefore reluctantly compelled to conclude that said order was made without authority and is therefore void. ’ ’

It is hardly necessary to add anything to the order of the court. The case is ruled by Wayne County v. Waller, 90 Pa. 99. In that case, a member of the bar expended some money and performed' professional services for a prisoner indicted for murder. The facts were submitted to the court on a case stated and it held that such services must be regarded as an incident of the official position, that lawyers as officers of the court take such offices com onere. “One of these burthens, which custom has recognized, is the gratuitous service rendered to a poor prisoner, at the suggestion of the court. ’ ’ In case of murder this has been changed by the Act of 1907, P. L. 31, 19 PS 784.

As the appellant can point to no act of assembly giving the court power to allow such compensation, none can be paid. That no appeal was taken from the order of the court directing the amount to be paid, does not affect the matter. The commissioners had not their day in court. Moreover, the court having no power, the order was void and its enforcement could be therefore prevented at any time.

The judgment is affirmed, the appellant to pay the costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A. 868, 113 Pa. Super. 348, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-henderson-pasuperct-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack