Commonwealth v. Williams

Citations

• 54 Pa. Super. 545
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 102

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional law — Title of act — Inquiring into fires — Special and local legislation — Arson—Criminal law.</p> <p>1. The Act of April 17, 1869, P. L. 74, entitled “An Act to provide a mode of inquiring into fires” is not defective in title, and therefore unconstitutional.</p> <p>2. The Act of April 17, 1869, P. L. 74, is not unconstitutional as special and local legislation, because the city of Philadelphia and the county of Allegheny are excluded from its operation, inasmuch as the constitutional provision as to local and special legislation in the constitution of 1874, is not retroactive.</p> <p>Criminal law — Arson—Indictment—Information—Act of April 17, 1869, P. L. 74-</p> <p>3. An indictment for arson will not be quashed because the justice of the peace and the jury of three who made the preliminary inquiry, in accordance with the Act of April 17, 1869, P. L. 74, upon which the indictment was based, were policy holders in mutual insurance companies which had issued policies on the building which had been burned.</p> <p>4. An indictment for arson will not be quashed, because the defendant testified in proceedings instituted under the Act of April 17,1869, P. L. 74, to inquire into the origin of the fire.</p> <p>5. An indictment for arson will not be quashed because it was not based upon information in the usual form, where it appears that the three jurors constituting a jury of inquiry under the Act of April 17, 1869, P. L. 74 had reported under oath that the defendant was an accessory to the burning and requested the justice holding the inquest to issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest; nor is it a ground for quashing such an indictment that there was no hearing after the defendant’s arrest, where it appears that the defendant did not demand a hearing, nor raise any objection to the validity of the warrant, nor take any proceeding to be discharged on that ground.</p>