Maus v. Mahoning Township

Citations

• 24 Pa. Super. 624
• 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 246

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Verdict—Judgment—Trespass.</p> <p>In an action of trespass against a township an entry of judgment “in favor of the defendant” by the prothonotary who signs his own name, is not fatally defective although the verdict of the jury returned some days before was “We find the said defendant township not guilty.”</p> <p>Evidence — Record—Certificate—Completeness of record.</p> <p>The fact that the certificate of the record of a “road proceeding” in another county states “in the court of quarter sessions in and for said county, it is, inter alia, thus contained,” does not of itself imply that the record is not complete. The words “inter alia” referred to other records and not to other parts of the same record.</p> <p>Road law — Width of road — Commissioners—Act of February 27, 1882, P. L. 35 — Evidence.</p> <p>Viewers appointed under the act of February 17, 1822, P. L. 35, have no power to fix the width of a road, and the record of their report is not legal evidence to establish the width.</p> <p>Negligence — Township—Unguarded embankment — Fright of horse — Bicycle.</p> <p>In an action against a township to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of a horse taking fright at a bicycle at a point on a public road where there was an unguarded embankment, it is error for the court to assume that the frightening of a horse by reason of an approaching bicycle, is such an extraordinary occurrence that the township could not reasonably be expected to have provided against it.</p> <p>Trial — Charge—Answers to points.</p> <p>Affirmance of points based upon facts which have no existence in the case, although abstractly correct, tends to confuse the jury, and is ground for reversal.</p>