Commonwealth v. Simon. Hastings is attached to the record. The complaint made by Almon Reinhart was attached to the record, and it charges the defendant with "trespass on land belonging to said William S. Hastings." If we consider this complaint as that of W. S. Hastings, and the one to which the defendant plead guilty, it is fatally defective. It is not stated in it, nor anywhere in the record, that the owner had posted printed notices upon the land, stating that it was private property, and warning all persons from trespassing upon it. That this must appear in the complaint is shown in Commonwealth vs. Holmes, 26 L. L. R. 246, and Commonwealth vs. Fluck, 7 Pa. J. Law Rep. 118. Unless such notices were posted on the land, it was not a violation of the Act of 1905 for the defendant to have trespassed on it. His plea of guilty, therefore, was only an admission that he did what was charged against him in the complaint, and as that did not charge a violation of the Act of 1905, that is, in going on land that was posted, as it requires, and under which the record shows the proceedings were instituted, there was nothing for which the justice could impose a sentence on the defendant. We, therefore, sustain the exceptions to the justice's record raising these questions, and quash the proceedings. Editorial Department R. D. No. 1, Lehighton, Pa., November 20, 1912. Justices' Law Reporter, Norristown, Pa. Gentlemen: Would be pleased to have an answer to the following inquiry: A boy of fifteen years worked for a party at Ten Dollars per month, and the said party always paid the wages to the boy. Now the boy left and his two and one-half months' wages are still due him. Who is the proper party to bring suit to recover the same, the boy or the boy's father? Replying to yours of the 20th inst., would state that a person under the age of twenty-one years, in this State, is regarded as an infant, that is to say, not in a position to give a valid consent. He may, however, sue in his own name, but the defendant may take advantage of such irregularity. Hardy vs. Scanlan, 1 Miles 87 (1835). It is not necessary that an infant should have a guardian appointed in order to enable him to maintain an action, but he may bring a suit in his own name by a next friend. It is not necessary that the next friend or guardian should be appointed by the Court in order to supply the want of capacity on the part of the infant. Heft vs. McGill, 3 Pa. 256 (1846). If suit is brought in the name of the minor, and no objection is raised, and the Justice enters judgment for the minor, there is no error. In bringing an action by a next friend, the caption should read as follows: James Smith, by his next Friend, George Jackson, VS. Samuel Johnson. If the minor has a guardian, the caption should read as follows: James Smith, by his Guard ian, Walter Sharp, VS. Samuel Johnson. In a hearing of this character the infant is a com petent witness. Very truly yours, A. R. Place. Right of a Witness to Sue for His Fees Before a Justice of the Peace. It was decided in Utt vs. Long, 6 W. & S. 174, that a witness, being subpoenaed and having attended Court, could demand his fees for every day from the party subpoenaing him, and could sue him before a Justice of the Peace, without a prior taxation by the prothonotary, and recover without an express promise by the party to pay them. A Justice of the Peace Who Believes in Thorough Preparation and Who Has Found the Justice's Law Reporter Helpful. February, 1905, Edwin Kirk was elected Justice of the Peace in the Borough of Jenkintown, County of Montgomery, Pa. Being desirous of serving his people intelligently and judicially, he made a careful study of both Binns' and M'Kinney's Justice; he then took up the study of the four volumes of Sir Wm. Blackstone, on the science of law, which proved very helpful to him. This he followed by taking a correspondence course with the Lincoln-Jefferson University, of Hammond, Indiana, the curriculum of which included twelve volumes, viz: Vol. 1, Legal History; Vol. II, United States Constitution and State Constitution; Vol. III, Contracts and Agency; Vol. IV, Torts, Damages and Domestic Relations; Vol. V, Sales, Bailments, Carriers, Personal Property and Patents; Vol. VI, Real Property, Abstracts and Mining Laws; Vol. VII, Equity Jurisprudence, Trusts and Equity Pleading; Vol. VIII, Partnerships, Private Corporations and Public Corporations; Vol. IX, Bills, Notes, Guaranty, Suretyship, Insurance and Bankruptcy; Vol. X, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Wills and Administration; Vol. XI, Common Law Pleading, Code Pleading, Federal Procedure and Evidence; Vol. XII, International Law, Conflict of Laws, Spanish-American Laws and Legal Ethics. He began his studies in a methodical way, as detailed, on February 12th, 1910, being then in his Seventieth year. This self-imposed task covered over 20,000 pages. After taking an examination upon each volume of the above course, on June 12, 1911, on final test, he passed with an average of 95, and received his diploma from the University, declaring him to be a Bachelor of Laws, June 15, 1911. During the time he has been Justice, he has read and reviewed 40,000 pages of legal literature, and heard over 2,000 cases, 80 per cent. of which have been civil cases, the remainder criminal cases. During the same period he has, through legal process, collected and paid over $40,000 and has settled numerous trivial cases without returning them to Court. In 1910 he was elected to a second term. After seven and one-half years of experience as Justice, he is deeply impressed with the responsibility of his office. There is no reason why the office should not be conducted with the same dignity as in the time of the celebrated John Binns, who was among the early Justices of the Commonwealth, and whose work on Judicial Procedure has been handed down from generation to generation as an invaluable text book and guide. The gentleman referred to in this sketch has been, and still is, a regular reader of the Justices' Law Reporter, and finds it reliable and helpful. Contributed. |