March 17. BAILEY, Q. C., and EDDIS now renewed their motion for an injunction, and also moved for an inspection. They cited, in addition to the cases above mentioned, Lewis v. Marsh, 8 Hare, 97; Attorney-General v. Chambers, 12 Beav. 159; Lowndes v. Bettle, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 55; Ennor v. Barwell, 1 DeG. F. & J. 130, and contended that the present was the stage of the suit at which the court could grant an inspection.

A plan of the underground works was produced, and an affidavit of Mr. Tyrer, a mine surveyor, was read, by which it appeared that the bill had been filed in consequence of Tyrer visiting the mines, as he had discovered that the defendants were working into the plaintiffs' barrier, the effect of which would be that the plaintiffs' mines would be flooded with

water.

GLASSE, Q. C., and SPEED, for the defendants, said that the motion was ex parte, as the exhibits had been obtained at Manchester only two days previously. The defendants had affidavits ready which would displace the plaintiffs' case on the question of title, but there had been no time to file them. The parties were rival colliers, the defendants having superior machinery, and the object of the plaintiffs in asking for an inspection, was to view the mode of working, which the defendants were unwilling to disclose.

BAILEY, Q. C., in reply.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-In this case the affidavits of the plaintiffs show prima facie a right in the plaintiffs to their mines, and that the defendants are cutting into the barrier surrounding the plaintiffs' mine. Notice of motion was served a fortnight ago, and the defendants, on the last seal day, asked for further time to file affidavits, which was granted; but the affidavits have not yet been filed. There must be either an injunction or an interim order for an injunction. There is also the question, whether the plaintiffs ought to be at liberty to inspect the defendants' mines. The court must be made. acquainted with the truth and materiality of the case, and it can only be satisfied of this, in a case like the present, by an

inspection, either by the plaintiffs or by competent persons employed by them; that is a course constantly taken to enable the court to do justice. The statement about the plaintiff's being rival colliers, and about their motives, is only a suggestion, although it is not impossible that it may be the fact, but unless there be something very special in these mines it can hardly be so, as there is generally no variety in machinery used in collieries. If it is only a question of title, and the defeudants admit the working, will they submit to an injunction till the hearing or further order?

Glasse said they would admit the working, and would submit to an injunction till the hearing or further order.

Bailey said the injunction would be no protection without the order to inspect.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—If I had a plan before me showing clearly the present state of the workings and the defendants' counsel would admit that such plan was correct, I would not, as the defendants are willing to submit to the injunction till the hearing or further order, give leave to inspect, because I should then possess the requisite knowledge of what has been done; but that not being so, if the plaintiffs will undertake to such damage as the court shall think fit to award by reason of granting the injunction, let there be an interim order in the terms of the notice of motion till the second day of sittings after the Easter vacation, and an order to inspect in the usual terms, the rest of the motion standing over till the first day of sittings after the Easter recess, with liberty to the defendants in the meantime on giving two days' notice, to bring on the motion and apply to discharge the order to view.

answer any

Solicitors: MILNE, SHARPE and PARKER.

THE COMMONWEALTH V. CONYNGHAM ET AL.

(66 Pennsylvania State, 99. Supreme Court, 1870.)

Time for appointing examiners-Construction of statute. The act of 1870, providing for the safety of mines, directed that upon the

passage of the act examiners were to be appointed by the judges of the Common Pleas "at the first term of the court in each year." At the time of the passage of the act the first term for that court in Luzerne county had passed. Held, that the examiners were to be appointed at the first term of the current year happening after the passage of the act. Terms and intent of the Safety Act stated and the statute construed so as to become definitely operative from the time of its passage.

Rule of construction. When a statute gives a power, what is necessary to make it effectual is given by implication.

May 24, 1870. Before THOMPSON, C. J., AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ.

This was an alternative mandamus, issued May 3, 1870, upon the information of F. Carroll Brewster, Esq., AttorneyGeneral, against John N. Conyngham, President Judge, Edmund L. Dana, Additional Law Judge, and Thomas Collins and Isaac S. Osterhout, Associate Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county.

The information set out that by the 14th section of an act passed March 3, 1870 (Pamph. L. 3), it was provided that upon its "passage," the governor should, "upon the recommendation of a board of examiners selected for that purpose, composed of three reputable coal miners in practice, and two reputable mining engineers, to be appointed by the judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county, all of whom shall be sworn to a faithful discharge of their duties, appoint three properly qualified persons to fill the offices of inspectors of coal-mines and collieries, for the counties of Luzerne and Carbon, whose commissions shall be for the term of five years or during good behavior." * **"The examiners provided for in this act shall be appointed by the judges of the Court of Common Pleas for the county, at the first term of the court in each year, to hold their places during the year, and vacancies shall be filled by the court as they occur."

By the 15th section of the said act it was provided that "the term of office of the inspector of coal mines, appointed under an act for the better regulation and ventilation of mines, and for the protection of the lives of the miners in the county of Schuylkill, approved April 12th, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, shall expire on the first day of June, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and seventy, and in his room three inspectors of mines for the counties of Schuylkill, Dauphin, Northumberland and Columbia, shall be appointed by examiners, to be appointed by the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill county, in the manner and form provided by the 14th section of this act."

That the respondents "have declined for the present to make the appointment of the board of examiners for said county, as required by the aforesaid sections of the act."

The respondents answered that they declined making the appointment, because the time had not arrived when the appointments could legally be made. The first term of the Luzerne Common Pleas for 1870 commenced on the first Monday of January, then last past; the second term, on the third Monday of February; the third term, on the first Monday of April; that the application for the appointment of examiners was made at the third term of the year 1870, and the respondents refused to appoint for defect of present power, as they believed, because the first term of the court for 1870 had passed, and they could not appoint till the first term of the next year.

The attorney-general demurred to the answer.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for the Commonwealth.- Statutes take effect from their date, unless it be otherwise provided: Braddee v. Brownfield, 2 W. & S. 279; Jamieson v. Attor ney-General, 1 Alcock & Napier, 375; Parker v. AttorneyGeneral, 6 Brown, P. C. 486. Wherever two parts of a statute are contradictory, the court endeavors to give a distinct interpretation to each of them by looking at the context: Pretty v. Solly, 26 Beav. 610; Kerlin v. Bull, 1 Dall. 178; Dwarris on Stat. 514, 517.

VOL. VIII-3

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 26, 1870, by THOMPSON, C. J.

The question presented in this case is single, and not difficult. The act of the General Assembly of the 3d of March, 1870, entitled "An act providing for the health and safety of persons employed in coal mines," provides for the appointment, by the governor, of three coal mine inspectors, for the counties of Luzerne and Carbon, upon the recommendation of a board of examiners to be appointed by the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county. The 14th section of the act provides for these appointments to be made by the governor "upon the passage of this act," but only upon the recommendation of the board of examiners. The examiners must be appointed by the court before they can recommend persons for appointment as inspectors. The difficulty in the minds of the respondents, the judges of the Common Pleas of Luzerne county, lies in the following provision contained in the section. It says, "the examiners provided for in this act shall be appointed by the judges at the first term of the court in each year," and as the act did not pass until after the first term of the court in Luzerne county had passed, they were of opinion that they had no power to appoint until the first term of the court in 1871, and they therefore declined to appoint.

This construction would defeat what seems to have been the manifest intention of the legislature in passing the act; namely, that it should go into operation immediately upon its passage. This very clearly appears in various provisions of the act. In the 14th section the governor is required "upon the passage of the act," subject of course to the time which may be required for the preliminary action of the board of examiners, to appoint the inspectors provided for in the act. This does not consist with the idea of waiting until another year to enable the court to appoint examiners at the first term. In the 4th section there is a provision requiring action by the inspectors in superintending the construction or sinking of slopes or outlets in mines requiring them, which are to be constructed within four months after the passage of the act, on penalty of inability to the owners to employ miners and