Commonwealth of Penna. vs York Haven Water and Power Company have no right under their charters to supply light and heat. They are authorized to furnish electric current or power. In. this particular alone do they resemble electric light companies. CONCLUSION From a full consideration of the case we are of the opinion: 1. That the defendant company is not an electric light company within the Act of June 1, 1889 so as to be subject to a tax on its gross receipts. 2. That the settlements made against the defendant for such tax is not warranted by law. 3. That the defendant is entitled to judgment. Wherefore judgment is directed to be entered in both cases against the Commonwealth and in favor of the defendant, unless exceptions be filed within the time limited by law. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs York Haven Water and Power Company Corporations--Water and water power companies-Taxation-Gross receipts. Water and water power companies are not taxable on their gross receipts, under section 23 of the Act of June 1, 1889, P. L. 420. A water and water power company is not taxable on its gross receipts derived from the transaction of electric lighting business. Appeals from settlements for tax on gross receipts. C. P. Dauphin County, Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85 Commonwealth Docket, 1917. Wm. M. Hargest, Deputy Attorney General, for plaintiff. Kunkel, P. J., January 3, 1920. These are appeals from accounts settled against the defendant company by the accounting officers of the Commonwealth for tax on its gross receipts. By agreement of the parties they have been consolidated and tried by the Court without a Jury. The facts are as follows: FACTS The defendant, the York Haven Water and Power Company, is a corporation of this Commonwealth, having been incorporated under the provisions of the IX Clause, Section 2, Act of April 29, 1874, as the same was amended by the Act of May 16, 1889, P. L. 226, "for the purpose of supplying Commonwealth of Penna. vs York Haven Water and Power Company water and power to the public and to firms, individuals and corporations in the Borough of York Haven, York County, Pennsylvania, and the territory adjacent thereto." In the accounts appealed from, the defendant was charged with a tax on its gross receipts under the Act of June 1, 1889, P. L. 420, as follows: On January 21, 1916, for the six months ended December 31, 1914, $984.79; on February 10, 1916, for the six months ended June 30, 1915, $1,351.59; on March 8, 1916, for the six months ended December 31, 1915, $1,474.53; and on September 25, 1916, for the six months ended June 30, 1916, $1,543.16. The 23rd Section of the Act of 1889, so far as it is involved in these appeals, provides: "That every * * * * electric light company doing business in this Commonwealth shall pay to the State Treasurer a tax of eight mills upon the dollar upon the gross receipts of said corporation." Water and power companies are created under the IX Clause, Section 2, of the general corporation Act of 1874 as this clause was amended by the Act of May 16, 1889, P. L. 226. By the Act of July 2, 1895, P. L. 425, they were authorized to convert their water power into electric power and to distribute such electric power to the public, and they are managed, governed and controlled under the provisions of clauses 2 and 4 of section 34, of the general corporation Act of 1874. They have not statutory authority to transact an electric light busi ness. Electric light companies are created under the XI clause, section 2, of the general corporation Act of 1874, as this clause was amended by the Act of May 8, 1889, P. L. 136. This class of corporations is managed, governed and controlled under the express provisions contained in the said Act of May 8, 1889, P. L. 136. Part of the tax charged in the settlement for the six months ended December 31, 1915, was assessed upon receipts amounting to $1,076.79 derived from electric lighting business, and part of the tax charged for the six months ended June 30, 1916, was assessed upon receipts amounting to $1,376.16 which were also derived from the same kind of business. DISCUSSION These appeals present the same question that was considered and decided in Commonwealth vs Pennsylvania Water and Power Company, Nos. 80 and 81 Commonwealth Docket, 1917, in this Court, ante page 10, where we held that water and power companies are not taxable on their gross receipts under Section 23 of the Act of June 1, 1889, P. L. 420. For Notaries Public the considerations which led us to that conclusion we refer to that case. An additional question is also presented, that of the defendant's taxability on its gross receipts derived from the transaction of electric lighting business. To this it is sufficient to say that the defendant is not to be found among the companies which are specifically mentioned in the statute and which as required to pay the tax. It follows therefore that it is not taxable on its gross receipts whencesoever they may be derived. We therefore conclude: 1. That the defendant company is not an electric company so as to be subject to the tax upon its gross receipts under the provisions of the Act of June 1, 1889. 2. That the settlements made against it for such tax are without warrant of law. 3. That the defendant is entitled to recover. Wherefore judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the defendant and against the Commonwealth in the several appeals unless exceptions be filed within the time limited by law. Notaries Public Notaries Public-Fees It is the duty of a notary public to keep an accurate account of all fees received by him, or fees which he was authorized by law to charge for services performed. The commonwealth has an interest in the fees of a notary public when they exceed the sum of $1,500. A notary public may remit his fees in whole or part, but he must keep an accurate account of the fees to which he is entitled. Attorney General's Department. Opinion to Fred T. MacDonald, Asst. Deputy Auditor General. Gawthrop, Deputy Attorney General, December 31, 1919. There was duly received your communication of the 29th inst. asking to be advised whether a Notary Public may charge, for administering an oath or affirmation, less than the fee prescribed by the Act of Assembly approved May 10, 1919, P. L. 903. That Act is entitled "An Act regulating the fees of Notaries Public." It provides, inter alia, that "from and after the passage of this Act, the fees of notaries public shall be as fol Notaries Public lows: administering an oath or affidavit, writing out and certifying the same with seal, fifty cents." I assume that by the words "administering an oath or affidavit" you mean to include the entire service above mentioned. I assume further that your inquiry is prompted by the sense of the obligation imposed upon your office by the Act of April 14, 1840, P. L. 335, which provides, that "every notary shall be subject to all the provisions of the Act of Assembly passed the tenth day of March, 1810, P. L. 79, entitled, An Act taxing certain officers and the supplement thereto passed the twenty-fourth day of March, 1818, P. L. 300, and shall give bond with two sufficient sureties to be approved by the Governor in such amount as may be determined by him, conditioned for the faithful payment to the State Treasurer of all taxes and moneys which he shall become liable to pay to the Commonwealth under the above recited acts." The Act of 1810, supra. provides that certain officers shall keep or cause to be kept a fair and accurate account of all the fees received for services performed by them, or any person employed by them in their respective offices, and shall annually thereafter furnish a copy of such account upon oath or affirmation to the Auditor General, who shall proceed to examine the account so furnished by said officers and whenever the amount of any of the said accounts shall exceed the sum of $1,500, the Auditor General shall charge the said officers respectively fifty per cent. on the amount of such excess, which sum shall be paid by said officers into the Treasury for the use of the Commonwealth. The last mentioned Act of Assembly is still in force and its provisions are made applicable to the office of Notary Public by the Act of 1840, supra. Under these acts, it is the plain duty of a Notary Public to keep an accurate account of all the fees received for services performed by him, or fees which he was authorized by law to charge for services performed. The Commonwealth has an interest in the fees of a Notary when they exceed the sum of $1,500. Manifestly the Commonwealth cannot be deprived of its fifty per centum of the fees of a Notary in excess of $1,500 by the failure of the Notary to charge according to the fee bill provided by the Act of Assembly. This does not mean that a Notary Public is obliged to charge the full fee prescribed by the Act of Assembly, but it does mean that in keeping the "fair and accurate account of all fees" for the purpose of taxation, he is chargeable with the fee fixed by law for the services performed by him in order properly to arrive at the amount, if any, which shall be due the Commonwealth. There is no reason why a Notary. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs William King Public may not remit his fees for services in whole or in part, but he must not fail to keep an accurate account of the fees to which he is entitled for the purpose of making payment into the State Treasury of fifty per centum of any and all fees in excess of $1,500. His own generosity may not operate to prejudice the right of the Commonwealth to receive what may be due under the law. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs William King Marriage Support While marriage may be presumed from cohabitation and reputation, that presumption is rebutted by proof that no valid marriage relation ever existed between the parties. Though a man and a woman have cohabited for years and have been reputed to be man and wife, a proceeding for support instituted by the woman will be dismissed where the evidence shows that no valid marriage ever existed between the parties. Application for support. Quarter Sessions of Dauphin County, No. 203, September Sessions, 1916. Harvey E. Knupp, for Commonwealth. Fox & Geyer for defendant. McCarrell, J., December 27, 1919. The prosecutrix, Mary King, alleges that she was married to William King, the defendant, for seventeen years prior to the hearing and has lived with him as his wife for that length of time. She was introduced by him as his wife and regarded by the neighbors as being the wife of the defendant. She was unable to give the date of the alleged marriage or the name of the person by whom the marriage was solemnized. Two children were born to her as the result of her relations with the defendant. The prosecutrix admitted that she was previously married to Henry S. Reidel and lived with him for a number of years in the City of Lancaster. A divorce was granted in Lancaster on July 8, 1905, the application having been made by her husband, Henry S. Reidel. The prosecutrix testified that after the granting of this divorce no marriage ceremony was had between her and the defendant. The defendant contended that there was no legal marriage between him and the prosecutrix, although admitting that they had lived together for many years and had been reputed to be man and wife. The prosecutrix rested her claim for support entirely upon the fact of their living together and being regarded as married persons. The fact of marriage to defendant |