Commonwealth v. Clark

Citations

• 3 Pa. Super. 141
• 1896 Pa. Super. LEXIS 118

Syllabus

<p>Practice, Q. S. — Gutting down trees — Proceedings on appeal from justice.</p> <p>On an appeal from proceedings instituted before a justice, for wrongfully cutting down ornamental trees, under the act of June 8, 1881, P. L. 82, the proper method of procedure is followed when the defendants are indicted and the case tried de novo.</p> <p>The question of the insufficiency of the justice’s record in such an action is immaterial, — the only conviction revievvable is that in the quarter sessions. If defendants had wished to test the regularity of the justice’s record they should have proceeded by certiorari or motion to quash.</p> <p>Practice, Q. S. — Refusal to read points — General charge.</p> <p>In a trial in the quarter sessions it is not error to refuse specifically to read and discuss before a juiy all the points, when the only point which could have been affirmed was fully and emphatically covered by the general charge.</p> <p>If the law applicable to the case is plainly, fully and accurately stated, the party has no cause of complaint should the judge choose to express it in his own words.</p> <p>Statutes — Repeal—Cutting down trees — Acts 0/I88I and 1891.</p> <p>The act of 1881, P. L. 82, is not repealed by the act of June 2, 1891, P. L. 170. The latter act provides for a method of recovery of damages for cutting trees along a public highway whether exercised regularly or irregularly under the right of eminent domain. The act of 1881 was intended to punish wrongdoers. There is no inconsistency between these statutes.</p> <p>Criminal law — Destruction of trees — Question for jury.</p> <p>The question whether trees alleged to have been wantonly destroyed were ornamental within the meaning of the act of 1881, P. L. 82, is properly for the jury, as also whether the cutting was “ wanton, reckless and useless.”</p> <p>Constitutional law — Statutes—Title—Acts of 1881 and 1895.</p> <p>The title need not schedule nor index.the contents of the act; it is enough that in