Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

AMBRIDGE BOROUGH ELECTORS PETITION (04/24/67)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: April 24, 1967.

AMBRIDGE BOROUGH ELECTORS PETITION

Appeal from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Beaver County, Nov. T., 1966, No. 1, in re petition of electors of Borough of Ambridge to eliminate wards and reduce number of councilmen in said borough.

COUNSEL

Joseph M. Stanichak, with him Peter P. Simoni, for appellant.

John E. Caputo, for appellees.

Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 425 Pa. Page 203]

This appeal concerns the propriety of an order issued by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Beaver County, acting pursuant to the Act of July 10, 1947, P. L. 1621, § 9, as amended by the Act of July 17, 1957, P. L. 987, § 2, 53 P.S. §§ 45601, 45602, whereby it abolished

[ 425 Pa. Page 204]

    the ward system in the Borough of Ambridge and reduced the number of councilmen from twelve to seven. No question is raised about the court's power to issue such an order, the sole questions being whether the court followed proper procedure and/or abused its discretion in this particular case.

We granted appellant's petition for review under Rule 68 1/2 because we felt it raised a substantial question as to whether the order of the court below unduly interfered with a pending election. Compare Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438, 458-68, 203 A.2d 556, 568-73 (1964). Upon review we are satisfied that considering the population of the Borough, the court's decision, filed a week before the last date for filing nominating petitions for the May 1967 primary, was in sufficient time to permit all concerned parties to adequately prepare for said primary and general elections.

We are further of the opinion that the proceedings in the court below were regular and that the plan adopted was proper. Although this appeal is on broad certiorari, this Court does not sit to "weigh the evidence or substitute our discretion for that of the Court below." West Conshohocken Borough Appeal, 405 Pa. 150, 160-61, 173 A.2d 461, 466 (1961). See South Pymatuning Twp. Appeal, 409 Pa. 324, 186 A.2d 13 (1962); Bell Appeal, 396 Pa. 592, 611, 152 A.2d 731, 740 (1959).

Supersedeas vacated. Order affirmed.

Disposition

Order affirmed.

19670424

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.