Commonwealth v. Hazen
Citations
- 20 Pa. Super. 487
- 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 267
Syllabus
<p>Constitutional law — Title of act — Blooming Grove Park Association— Act of March 28, 1871, P. L. 441 — Killing deer.</p> <p>The act of March 23, 1871, entitled “An act to incorporate the Blooming Grove Park Association,” is not unconstitutional as defective in title. The title of the act gives notice of the inténtion to maintain a park. The word “park” indicates a purpose to do those things which are included in the broadest definition of a “ park.” Adequate protection by expressed provisions preventing and punishing tortious and predatory acts, such as killing deer may reasonably be expected to form a part of the legislation providing for the maintenance of a “ park.”</p> <p>The original meaning of the word “park” in the law was a tract of enclosed land stocked with wild beasts of the chase, enjoyed by the owner through royal grant or by immemorial prescription. In this definition a “ park ” is distinguished from a “ chase ” by the fact that the latter is not enclosed.</p> <p>AVhere the constitutionality of a provision of a statute involves the meaning of a word, if any meaning whether popular or technical will sustain the exercise of the power, it is sufficient. If the strict and legal meaning has the effect of limiting or destroying while some other popular acceptation of the word will support the legislative act, the latter must be resorted to. The popular sense of a technical word, if it has a popular sense broader than the technical one must be adopted, if the effect be not to limit or restrain the general grant of power.</p> <p>All the presumptions are in favor of the constitutionality of statutes, and courts are not to be astute in finding or sustaining objections to them.</p> <p>Constitutional law — Bill of rights — Law of the land — Killing deer— Blooming Grove Park Association.</p> <p>Inasmuch as the provisions of the act of March 23, 1871, entitled “An act to incorporate the Blooming Grove Park Association,” enure to the advantage of the public in th
Judges: Beaver, Orlady, Portee, Porter, Rice
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Craig v. First Presbyterian ChurchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1879-01-06· cited 59×
- Commonwealth v. JonesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1897-04-12· cited 41×
- State Line & Juniata Railroad Company's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1875-02-23· cited 20×
- Commonwealth v. BeattySuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1900-07-26· cited 20×
- City of Pittsburg ex rel. Flanagan v. DalySuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1897-10-11· cited 19×
- Blood v. MercelliottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1867-05-13· cited 12×
- Overseers of the Poor v. County of ArmstrongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1899-07-28· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.