Commonwealth v. Gibbons

Citations

• 9 Pa. Super. 527
• 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69

Syllabus

<p>Jurisdiction, Superior Court — Contempt of court in proceedings m contested election.</p> <p>The Superior Oourt lias exclusive and final appellate jurisdiction of all proceedings of any kind in the court of quarter sessions, and hence its jurisdiction attaches where the record shows a proceeding against a defendant for a contempt of court, consisting of a refusal to testify in a case involving the right to a public office. Such proceeding or the judgment therein does not involve the right to the office in question nor can such right be in any manner affected by the determination of the question presented in the contempt proceeding, which is in itself a distinct and substantive offense against the law.</p> <p>Jurisdiction, Superior Court — Common law — Habeas corpus.</p> <p>Common-law principles underlie all forms of procedure and enter very largely into the adjudications of the Superior Court both directly and by implication ; and that court, or any judge thereof in vacation, has the power to grant a common-law writ of habeas corpus, whenever necessary in aid of pending appeals. This right, moreover, is conferred expressly by the Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212.</p> <p>Habeas corpus — Common-law power to issue writ.</p> <p>The power to grant a writ of habeas corpus is an implied common-law power, not created by the habeas corpus act of 1785, but existing both before and since the passage of that act, in every court of record invested with extensive appellate jurisdiction, whether applied for in term time or vacation, and the writ may be moulded to meet the exigencies of the particular case.</p> <p>Appeals — Practice, Superior Court — Habeas corpus — Certiorari.</p> <p>Certiorari and habeas corpus may be severally used as ancillary to each other and when so used the duty of the appellate court in a contempt case is to ascertain whether the court below had jurisdiction in the premises, and exercised it according to law: whether the offense of which the r-elator sta