Brown v. Commonwealth
Brown v. Commonwealth
Opinion of the Court
Humphrey Brown was indicted and convicted in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Bradford county, of a nuisance, in the erection of a dam, across Wyalusing creek, which had been declared a public highway, by an act passed 4th April, 1805. Judgment was given, that the defendant should remove the. nuisance, and pay a fine of 100 dollars for the use of the Commonwealth. ■ .
The error assigned is, that the proceedings and judgment on this indictment were according to the common law, whereas they ought to have been according to the directions of the act of 23d March, 1803, (4 Sm. Laws, 20.) By the
The indictment is for a nuisance in that part of Wyalusing creek, between the mouth thereof, and Picketfs mill, by means of a mill dam. The sentence of the Court is, that the defendant below shall abate the nuisance, and pay a fine of 100 dollars for the use of the Commonwealth. This indictment and judgment cannot be supported under the act of 23d March, 1803, entitled “ an act to authorise any per- “ son or persons, owning lands adjoining navigable streams “ of water, declared public highways, to erect dams on such “streams for mills or other water-works.” The previous proceedings under the act; the appointment of commissioners to view, &c.; the return; the decree of the Court; that, on the statement of the commissioners, it appeared, that an offence against the act had been committed, and the order, that a bill of indictment should be sent up to the grand jury; should have appeared to authorise the indictment. But the sentence is not pursuant to the act. That directs a fine not exceeding 100 dollars ; one moiety to the prosecution, and the other to the supérvisors; and to pay such damages to the person complaining, as shall be found by the jury, and the Court shall direct the supervisors to remove the obstruction.
It is declared, by act of 21st March, 1806, that in all cases where a remedy is provided, or duty enjoined, or any thing directed to be done by7 any act of assembly, the directions of the act shall be strictly pursued, and no penalty inflicted, or any thing done agreeably to the provisions of the common law, in such cases, further than shall be necessary for carrying such act into effect. There are particular directions, and a penalty appropriated in a particular manner, and to particular persons. The form prescribed has not been
If this indictment can be supported, it must be on the ground that the Wyalusing creek is not embraced by the act of March, 1803. Wyalusing creek was first declared a public highway on 4th April, 1805; and being by the act declared a public highway, every erection in it, would be indictable as a nuisance ; the party subjected to a fine to the use of the Commonwealth, and to be ordered in the sentence to remove it. It is contended, that the act of March, 1803, included in its provision, such streams as had been theretofore declared public highways. This act is not a penal one, creating a new offence, and inflicting a new or additional penalty. It is an act granting a privilege; remedial. It grants a benefit to. the owners of lands adjoining these streams, declared public highways ; giving them a liberty to erect dams, and to lead off as much of the water as might be necessary for their water-works ; provided, that the erection shall not impede the navigation, or prevent the fish from passing up. The mischief and the remedy are to be considered in the construction of this act. The mischief was, that when a stream was declared to be a public highway, all its usefulness for water-works was done away. Recourse was had constantly to the legislature for this privilege. Much time of the legislature was consumed, and great expenses incurred. The remedy intended by the law-makers was, to grant the privilege to all the adjacent owners, under certain prescribed regulations. It was a general regulation; excepting only the rivers Delaware, Lehigh, and Schuylkill. It is no violation of the most strict grammatical construction of the whole sentence, to extend the word declared, so as to include all streams, that should be declared public highways at the time of erecting any dam thereon. To confine it only to those streams, theretofore declared highways, would be restraining the general scope and view of the law. All difficulties in my mind, are, however, removed by the third section. The first grants the privilege. The second punishes by indictment its abuse. The third grants redress for injuries sustained by individuals from the improper use of the
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Brown against The Commonwealth
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published