Commonwealth v. Pickett.

and fall of the water, and to leave it in that condition for a week, without any supervision or inspection, is not a compliance with the provisions of the eighth section of the Act of May 1st, 1909.

While it may not be necessary to remove all the bottoms in the basket each day, yet it is necessary to remove more than the bottom in one fall, in order to disable the basket, so as to make it impossible to catch fish during the prohibited period and especially is this true when the licensee expects and intends to remain away from his basket for several days at a time.

Under the admitted facts, we believe the defendant was properly convicted by the Justice of the Peace.

Our present inquiry is confined to the question, whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the judgment of guilty entered by the Justice of the Peace. We believe there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion at which the Justice arrived. The legal question involved, under the facts, was, we think, properly decided.

And now, to wit, September 24th, 1912, the rule granted in this case to show cause why an appeal shall not be allowed the defendant, is hereby discharged.

Editorial Department

Orbisonia, Pa., January 4, 1913.

Mr. A. R. Place,

Dear Sir:

My

I have not received Bound Vol. X of the J. L. R. subscription expired August, 1912. I am still receiving the J. L. R. and want to send in my subscription for 1913, but have never heard whether an organization has been made of the justices of the State. I see the circulation, December, 1912, No. 4, is given at nine hundred, whereas it was given at one thousand August, 1911. What is the matter? The circulation should be at least three thousand. As I am told, there are five thousand justices in the State. If no organization has been made, please make another appeal to all the justices of the State to join and get organized. I think I could get one or two besides myself to join here.

Please let me know about it, and what the subscription and dues will be for 1913, and send me bound Volume X for my last year's subscription.

Yours, for J. L. R.,

D. H. Book, J. P.

Answer to Above Letter.

January 15, 1913.

D. H. Book, Esq.,

Orbisonia, Pa.

My dear Sir:

Yours of the 13th inst. to hand, and in reply beg to

state that bound Volume X, J. L. R., will reach you in a few days.

Replying to your statement as to circulation, would state that I agree with you. It should be larger, and yet I am much gratified with the number I now have. I print 1200 copies monthly and they all go out and I have no doubt they accomplish much good, as least I have reason to believe so when I look over some of the testimonials I have received.

The Justices' Law Association is an organization that should grow, but you are perhaps aware that it requires a good deal of urging to induce Justices to come forward and claim what belongs to them. I offered them and shall continue to offer them the opportunities for self improvement and protection, but they are a little slow to grasp them. I am not discouraged, however. I intend, in the very near future, to place before the subscribers to the J. L. R. a matter which, I have no doubt, will interest every one. I am anxious that the Journal shall keep the Justices informed as to all new laws and decisions, so that it may not be necessary for them to purchase text books constantly. The life of most text books is only until the next meeting of the legislature. What the Justices need is the J. L. R., to apprise them of changes in the law and the consequent changes in the practice.

I heartily agree with what you say, and assuring you of the high regard in which I hold the minor judiciary generally, and with best wishes for your individual success, I beg to be,

Obediently yours,

Justices' Law Reporter.

Constitutional Revision.

There is considerable agitation of the question of constitutional reform, revision or amendment, in order to provide for the initiative, referendum and recall.

Should the constitution be revised, what changes would it be desirable to urge with respect to the minor judiciary?

It is important, of course, that the constitution should designate the office of magistrate, or by such other name as may be convenient, but it is also important that the constitution should define the office and its duties so resilient as to permit proper legislation to make it effective.

Owing to the increase in commercial transactions, both in number and volume, litigation has multiplied enormously. In order to relieve congestion in the Courts, the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, which at first was limited to one hundred dollars, was subsequently, in 1879, extended to three hundred dollars.

In Philadelphia, however, magistrates have jurisdiction in sums not exceeding one hundred dollars. The jurisdiction as to amount cannot be extended owing to the provision contained in Section 12 of Article V of the Constitution of 1874. There is no such restriction in Section 11, Article V, relating to justices and aldermen. It is a little strange that there should have been a constitutiona! prohibition as to Philadelphia, because there is perhaps more litigation in small amounts in a large city than elsewhere.

While there is not any great necessity for constitutional revision, yet if it should be decided so to do, it is to be hoped that those to whom the task of framing the fundamental law of the land shall be assigned will make proper provision for the minor judiciary.

Awnings Extending over Sidewalks.

The highways belong to the Commonwealth in trust for the great body of the people, and he who claims a peculiar privilege to invade them, as for instance, to cover over part of a street or highway with an awning must establish his right under some statute or valid municipal regulation ordained in pursuance of statutory authority.

Philadelphia vs. Teller, 50 Superior Ct. 260 (1912)

Plotted Streets to be Kept Open.

Where a person lays out his land in a plan of lots, showing the lots fronting on streets and alleys, and sells and conveys the lots according to the plan, he thereby conveys to each lot purchaser an easement to have all of the streets and alleys shown in the plan kept open for the use of himself and other purchasers, and such right may be enforced by a purchaser of a lot against an earlier purchaser of another lot, although the latter had some years prior to the purchase of the former, successfully maintained a bill in equity enjoining the municipal authorities from removing an encroachment which he had made in an alley.

Bond vs. Barrett, 50 Superior Ct. 307 (1912).

Common Carriers Liable for the Agreed Value of a Horse Where a carrier schedules a minimum rate for horses not exceeding $100 in value, and a shipper values a horse at $100, and the rate of transportation is fixed accordingly, the carrier cannot, after the horse has been lost and the shipper