Commonwealth v. Kern

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas

Commonwealth v. Kern

3 Pa. D. & C. 384, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 487

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County

DecidedOctober 2, 1922

DocketNo. 135

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pa. D. & C. 384 (Commonwealth v. Kern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Kern, 3 Pa. D. & C. 384, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 487 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Groman, P. J., and Reno, J.,

The alderman’s transcript is defective. A long line of well considered cases hold that in surety of the peace cases the alderman’s return must affirmatively show compliance with the provisions of the Act of March 18, 1909, P. L. 42. These cases we approve for reasons stated in an opinion this day filed in Com. v. Lowry [3 D. & C. 118],

Unless the alderman’s transcript affirmatively and by proper recitals shows (a) his suggestion to the parties of the propriety of compromising their differences ; (b) a full hearing and investigation of the facts; and (c) a specific finding that the evidence shows that the danger of being hurt in body or estate is actual and that the threats were made by the defendant and with intent to do harm, we have no jurisdiction to try the offence, and the prosecution must be dismissed. In addition to these requirements, the bail must be for defendant’s appearance forthwith, and not for his appearance at the next term of court: Act of April 27, 1909, P. L. 260.

Now, Oct. 2, 1922, the motion to quash is sustained and the prosecution is dismissed. From James L. Schaadt, Allentown, Pa.

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

Groman, P. J., and Reno, J.,

The alderman’s transcript is defective. A long line of well considered cases hold that in surety of the peace cases the alderman’s return must affirmatively show compliance with the provisions of the Act of March 18, 1909, P. L. 42. These cases we approve for reasons stated in an opinion this day filed in Com. v. Lowry [3 D. & C. 118],

Unless the alderman’s transcript affirmatively and by proper recitals shows (a) his suggestion to the parties of the propriety of compromising their differences ; (b) a full hearing and investigation of the facts; and (c) a specific finding that the evidence shows that the danger of being hurt in body or estate is actual and that the threats were made by the defendant and with intent to do harm, we have no jurisdiction to try the offence, and the prosecution must be dismissed. In addition to these requirements, the bail must be for defendant’s appearance forthwith, and not for his appearance at the next term of court: Act of April 27, 1909, P. L. 260.

Now, Oct. 2, 1922, the motion to quash is sustained and the prosecution is dismissed. From James L. Schaadt, Allentown, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pa. D. & C. 384, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-kern-pactcompllehigh-1922.