Commonwealth v. Furl
Opinion of the Court
Defendant was arrested on December 1, 1968, for alleged violation of sub-section b, section 1008, The Vehicle Code of April
It is the Commonwealth’s contention, that in accordance with section 1201 (a) of The Vehicle Code, supra, 75 PS §1201 requiring that a person so charged be brought before the “nearest available magistrate,” Justice Moths was the nearest available magistrate because even though Justice Sweet was physically present in his office, he being newly elected, had not received the usual supply of printed forms used to process such cases. This contention is based upon pure supposition of the inability of Justice Sweet to properly adjudicate the matter because admittedly the arresting officer made no effort to have the matter presented to Justice Sweet who would have had 14 days from the date of filing the information to the
The provisions of the statute requiring information to be brought before the nearest available magistrate within the political subdivision where the alleged offense occurred, etc., are mandatory and jurisdiction depends upon their observance: Commonwealth v. Schubert, 207 Pa. Superior Ct. 88; Commonwealth v. Muth, 397 Pa. 106. In the present case the information showed on its face that Justice Moths was located in a different political subdivision from that in which the alleged offense occurred with no explanation as to why he considered himself to be the nearest available magistrate. The Commonwealth has failed to show from the record and stipulated facts that Justice Sweet was unable or unwilling to exercise the duties of his office.
For the foregoing reasons we make the following
Order
Now, July 2, 1969, Justice of the Peace Theodore K. ' Moths had no jurisdiction in the within case, the information is quashed and the charge against defendant is dismissed. Costs to be paid by County of Cameron.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.