Commonwealth v. Hanley

Citations

• 15 Pa. Super. 271
• 1900 Pa. Super. LEXIS 338

Syllabus

<p>Practice, Q. S. and C. P. —Insufficient evidence — Remedy beloiv — Binding instructions — Motion in arrest of judgment — Appeal.</p> <p>Where the sole complaint is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, the remedy of the party in the trial court is by motion for a new trial and not by motion in arrest of judgment. Opportunity for review in the appellate court may be secured by a request for binding instructions and excepting to and assigning for error the refusal so to charge.</p> <p>If the granting or refusal of the motion in arrest of judgment be the only matter assigned for error, the case will be reviewed on the record proper.</p> <p>Police power — Regulation of undertakers — Statutes—Act of 1895 — Constitutional law.</p> <p>The regulation of the business of undertaking is clearly a legitimate exercise of police power. It is not a mere trade regulation. The Act of June 7, 1895, P. L. 167, does not offend against the constitutional provisions relating to local or special legislation, nor need it fall by reason of any objection to its title. The act of 1895 may well stand and effect the purpose for which it was enacted, even if the 5th section be restricted in its operation to the class of undertakers mentioned or plainly referred to in its title, and it be held void so far as it relates to others.</p>