view, 188, this Court decided, in like manner, where it appeared that the plaintiff, who was riding a bicycle along a public road, was attacked and injured by the defendant's dog. On the same line are Sander vs. Simpson Bros., 6 Jus. L. Rep., 193, and numerous other

cases.

We are, therefore, forced to conclude that the Alderman had no jurisdiction in this case. The exceptions are sustained and his proceedings are set aside. Exceptions sustained.

C. P. OF LANCASTER COUNTY.

Quarryville National Bank vs. John Hess

and John T. Hill.

Verdict for less than $100-Costs

Practice.

Where on suit for less than $100 without an affidavit being filed that the claim exceeded $100 a verdict was rendered against one of two defendants and for the other who had not been properly served, the court has no authority at the instance of the former to rule the plaintiff to pay the bill of costs of the latter for witness fees and mileage. The bill should be properly taxed and any dispute settled by appeal.

August Term, 1905. No. 69.

Rule to show cause why bill of costs should not be paid by plaintiff.

B. F. Davis, for rule.

W. U. Hensel, contra.

January 1, 1910. Opinion by LANDIS, P. J.

In this case, the plaintiff brought suit in the Court of Common Pleas against the defendant to recover the sum of $75.00, on a promissory note, dated September 24, 1900. At the trial it was discovered that the wrong John Hess had been served with the summons, and a verdict was, therefore, rendered. against John T. Hill alone. As the verdict was for a less sum than $100.00, and no affidavit had been previously filed, as is required by the Act of March 20, 1810, P. L., 208, no costs will follow the verdict.

But no application has yet been made to have judgment entered against Hill without costs, and, so far as appears

before us, no bill of costs has been taxed. John Hess, however, on February 8, 1907, filed a bill of costs amounting to $55.00, and the petition of William C. Whiteside, guardian of John T. Hill, who has been declared a weak-minded person, asks us to make an order that the bill of costs of John Hess for witness fees and mileage be paid by the plaintiff bank. How we are going to do this in the present state of the record we fail to see. The bill of costs should be properly taxed, and, if any dispute arises concerning them, an appeal can be taken to this Court, and the difficulty will be adjusted, and after a final determination of the amount due, these costs can be collected as in other cases. There is, however, no authority, we think, for our making such an order as the guardian desires, and especially is this so, as John Hess is not a party to this proceeding.

The rule to show cause is, therefore, discharged, and the petition dismissed. Rule discharged.

C. P. OF LANCASTER COUNTY.

Quarryville National Bank vs. John T. Hill. Verdict for less than $100—Costs— Practice.

On suit and verdict for less than $100 without an affidavit that the claim exceeded $100 being filed the proper practice is to enter a rule for judgment without costs, which being made absolute, the defendant may then pay the judgment.

August Term, 1905. No. 68.

to pay judgment without costs and that Rule to permit guardian of defendant the same be satisfied of record.

B. F. Davis, for rule.
W. U. Hensel, contra.

January 1, 1910. Opinion by LANDIS, P. J.

Suit was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant in this Court on a note of $40.00, dated December 13, 1901, and, upon trial, a verdict was rendered by a jury, on February 8, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff, for $45.29. W. C. Whiteside has been appointed by us as guardian of John T. Hill, who is weakminded. He now petitions for permis

It is true that, the suit having been instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for a less sum than $100.00, and without an affidavit that the plaintiff believed it exceeded that sum, under the twentysixth section of the Act of March 20, 1810, P. L., 208, no costs can be recovered by the plaintiff; but we conceive. the proper practice to be to enter a rule for judgment without costs, which being made absolute, the defendant may then pay the judgment. This appears to have been the form pursued in Kreiter vs. Burkholder, 5 Lanc. Bar, No. 50 (1874). Even if we are authorized to direct the satisfaction of a judgment in this summary way, we certainly cannot do so before any judgment has been entered, and this appears to be the present state of the record.

The rule is, therefore, discharged.
Rule discharged.

Legal Miscellany.

A LEGAL DISTINCTION.-A longwinded, prosy counselor was arguing a technical case recently before one of the judges of the Superior Court. He had drifted along in such a desultory way that it was hard to keep track of what he was trying to present, and the judge had just vented a very suggestive yawn. "I sincerely trust that I am not unduly trespassing on the time of this court," said the lawyer, with a suspicion of sarcasm in his voice.

"There is some difference," the judge quietly observed, "between trespassing on time and encroaching on eternity.

-Philadelphia Public Ledger.

THE WISDOM OF SILENCE.-The late Judge Silas Bryan, the father of Will

"Say, judge," he said, "I heard yew had some hams stole t'other night."

Yes," replied the judge very confidentially, "But don't tell anyone. You and I are the only ones who know it." -Success Magazine.

A STREET car passenger is held, in Heinze vs. Interurban R. Co. (Iowa), 117 N. W., 385, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.), 715, not to be negligent per se, because, after signaling for a stop, and the car has begun to slacken speed as his destination is approached, he takes a position on the step preparatory to alighting when the car stops.

C. P. AND Q. S. OPINIONS. Saturday, January 15, 1910.

By Judge LANDIS:

In re School District of Little Britain Township. Rule to appoint an inspector made absolute. B. C. Atlee, Esq., appointed inspector.

The Township of Strasburg vs. Benjamin W. Smeltz. Equity docket. Bill sustained, and temporary injunction made permanent.

Grace Leaman vs. Lancaster County Mutual Insurance Company. Rule for judgment for defendant n. o. v. made absolute.

F. W. Ream vs. John B. Hershey. Rule for new trial discharged.

Drumore Township School District vs. Fulton Township School District. Case stated. Judgment for defendant.

J. W. Johnson vs. Amos E. Funk. Equity Docket. Final hearing. Preliminary injunction dissolved and bill dismissed.

Amos E. Funk vs. J. W. Johnson. Equity Docket. Final hearing. Injunction dissolved and bill dismissed, and plaintiff to pay costs.

Commonwealth vs. William Hinden. Rule for a new trial discharged.

fendant.

Paul E. Smith, by his father and next friend, Harry Smith vs. George Brown's Sons. Rule to strike off judgment of non-suit discharged.

Harry Smith vs. George Brown's Sons. Rule to strike off judgment of non-suit discharged.

M. B. Reddig vs. H. F. Eberly. Rule for a new trial discharged. Annie Elizabeth Clark vs. the City of Lancaster. Rule to strike off judgment of non-suit discharged.

C. A. Rost & Co. vs. E. Cohen, trading as The Globe Leaf Tobacco Company. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense discharged.

C. A. Rost & Co. vs. The Globe Cigar Company. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense discharged.

John A. Stitzel vs. The Borough of

J. G. Forney vs. Mrs. Amelia Stoll, Rule to strike off judgment of non-suit discharged.

Jacob Mahler vs. Jacob Hartman. Rule for a new trial discharged.

George W. Dorsheimer vs. S. R. Slaymaker. Rule for attachment against S. R. Slaymaker discharged.

Garfield Becker vs. Oscar Palm. Cer

tiorari. Exceptions dismissed and pro

ceedings confirmed.

Mary Kirchoff vs. Philip Weisman. Bill in equity. The agreement of partition is declared void.

Rule

George Bard vs. A S. Johns. for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense discharged.

David R. Forbes vs. E. B. Kendig. Rule to open judgment discharged.

The Common School District of Martic township, Lancaster county, Pa., vs. McCall Ferry Power Company, T. ment for plaintiff for $481.75E. Aldred, receiver. Case stated. Judg

People's Trust Company of Lancaster, S. R. Slaymaker, to the use of the Pa. vs. Thomas C. Russel, Sadsbury. Rule to strike off judgment discharged. Rule to open judgment made absolute.

Harry Resh. Rule for new trial disCommonwealth of Pennsylvania vs.

charged.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. John Dorwart. Rule for new trial made

absolute.

of non-suit discharged.

Salant & Salant vs. John C. Miller. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense made absolute and judgment entered for plaintiff generally.

Harry Neff vs. John H. Eshleman, Tax Collector of Conestoga township.

O. C. ADJUDICATIONS.
By Judge SMITH.
January 13, 1910.

Catharine E. Long, City, $3,254.20.

attend the school or schools therein,

dents of said district, may set forth, in

Common Pleas--Law.

C. P. OF LANCASTER COUNTY. In re Salisbury School District (No. 1). Inspector of school accommodations Practice-Act of June 6, 1893.

The Act of June 6, 1893, P. L. 330, provides that the court may appoint an inspector on petition to remedy insufficient public school facilities, but as the inspector's findings are not conclusive and may be disregarded by the court, the court may in the first instance grant a rule to appoint an inspector and ob

tain the facts under the rule.

On pelition for an inspector of school accommodations it appeared that thirty scholars had to walk from one and a quarter to two miles to school houses at which there was more than sufficient seating capacity for all the scholars attending, but five of the children had to cross the railroad track at grade, and there were forty-eight scholars attending at one of the schools and the tax rate for the

district was only one and three-fourths mills, Held that the petition would be dismissed if the directors would forthwith take steps

to build a new school house.

Trust Book No. 17, page 330.

petition the Court of Common Pleas of the county in which said school district is situated, or, in vacation, any judge of the said Court, for the appointment of a competent inspector, and the Court, or Judge thereof, may appoint such inspector, etc."

The Court may, therefore, immediately upon the presentation of the petition. appoint an inspector, and this practice. G. Barr, 188 Pa., 122; but, as it has was followed in In re Petition of Cyrus also been held that the inspector's findings of fact are not conclusive, and may be wholly disregarded by the Court (Ross' Appeal, 179 Pa., 24), we have, with a knowledge of the locality, seen fit, in this case, to grant, in the first instance, a rule to show cause why an inspector should not be appointed, and, by this means, have the chief facts, at the inception of the proceedings, brought before us.

On August 21, 1899, nineteen citizens and residents of Salisbury Township presented their petition to this Court, setting forth that they resided in the villages of Slaymakertown and Kinzer and in parts of said township adjacent

W. U. Hensel for rule.

F. S. Groff contra.

February 10, 1900. Opinion by LANDIS, P. J.

By the Act of June 6, 1893, P. L., 330, section I, it is provided: That, whenever the School Directors of Controllers of any city, borough, township or independent school district shall wilfully neglect or refuse to provide suitable houses, rooms or buildings in and for any school district within their jurisdiction and under their supervision and control, with ample room and seating capacity for the reasonable and convenient accommodation of all the school children residing within the district who may be in attendance, or who desire to

convenience, by reason of the lack of public school house facilities, there being twenty-eight children of school age in the village of Slaymakertown who were third to school, and six or more children obliged to walk about one mile and a residing in the village of Kinzer, and in the said township nearby, who have no school of the township within a listance of two miles or more by the nearest public road; and that they have appealed to the School Directors to build a new school house convenient to them, but that the said Directors have neglected and refused so to do.

To this petition, the School Directors of the township made answer. They denied that the petitioners labored under great inconvenience by reason of the lack of proper school facilities as aforesaid, in that all, except those in the

It was also shown that there was seating capacity in the Harmony school for sixty-eight scholars, in the Bethania school for sixty-four, and in the Buyerstown school for sixty-four. Last year nine scholars were transferred from the Harmony school to the Gap schools, on account of the crowded condition of the first-named school, and there are now in the Gap schools eighty scholars.

Depositions were thereupon taken by both parties, and the following facts were elucidated :

The pupils for whose benefit this application has been made are attending three school houses in Salisbury Township, viz: Harmony school house, located near the Gap; Bethania school house, located on the Strasburg Road, south of the Pennsylvania Railroad; and Buyerstown school house, located in the village of Buyerstown; and also the Kinzer school house, located in the village of Kinzer, in Paradise Township. The children attending the Kinzer school house are doing so under an arrangement between the School Boards of the said two townships.

There were in attendance at Harmony, during the second month of the present term, eighteen scholars, coming from Slaymakertown and its vicinity; at Bethania, six scholars; and at Buyerstown, five scholars; and five scholars from Salisbury Township attended the

Kinzer school house.

The roll for this month at these three Salisbury school houses showed a total attendance, at Harmony, of forty-eight; at Bethania, of thirty-two; and at Buyerstown, of thirty-three.

The number of children of school age for whom a school house is desired is forty-two. These scholars, except the five attending the Kinzer school in Paradise Township, have now from one and onefourth to two miles to go to the school houses which they are attending, and five of them are obliged to cross the four tracks of the Pennsylvania Railroad, at grade, to reach the Bethania school.

that there is sufficient seating capacity in the present schools for all comers; but surely this is not the test. If it were, the school houses could be made large and few in number. No teacher can render proper service to more than a certain number of scholars, and surely the number in Harmony, with those who will naturally come there as the term advances, exceeds the limit. In these times, school houses are not so few or so remote as in the days of our fathers, and, while the children may be able to travel over considerable distances, they are no longer called upon to do so. Nor is it improper to consider the fact that some of the children, being obliged to cross the railroad at grade, may meet with an accident at any time. That no accident has occurred is not proof positive for the future, and the life of one of the children is of much more importance than the costs of the erection of a new building to the tax-payers.

We have carefully considered this question. We believe that the Directors have been conscientious in their desire to administer, with economy, the finances of the district, and are, by this argument, chiefly moved to postpone the erection of this school house. When the application was made, the taxes for the year had, no doubt, been agreed upon, and it would have been at some inconvenience and trouble that the work could have been carried on and the necessary funds raised. The same argument does not, however, now apply. The tax rate for the district is only one and three-fourths mills. The amount received from the state is about $3.500. The work can easily be done in time for the coming school year. We think, in view of all the circumstances, it should be done. The