Per Curiam,
¶1
Examination of the record in this case fully sustains the conclusion reached by the lower court. The judgment of ouster of appellant from the office of township commissioner for the Sixth Ward of the Township of North Versailles, Allegheny County, is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Eldee W. Maeshall. Costs to be plaid by appellant.
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture Appeal, No. 185, March T., 1935, by defendant, from order and judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1934, No. 423, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Andrew T. Park, District Attorney, v. William Joyce. Judgment affirmed.
Quo warranto. Before E. W. MARSHALL, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the lower court, E. W. MARSHALL, J., as follows:
In this quo warranto proceeding to test respondent's right to hold the office of township commissioner for North Versailles Township, the verdict was for the relator. Respondent has moved for a new trial and for judgment non obstante veredicto.
In the suggestion filed, it was charged that respondent was born in Ireland on April 5, 1888, and never had
become an American citizen. Respondent averred in his answer that he was born in Ireland, of alien parentage, on or about April 5, 1889, the son of William and Margaret Joyce, and that his father was naturalized on June 19, 1909, while respondent was yet a minor. The relator conceded the fact of the father's naturalization, wherefore the only issue for the jury was whether the respondent was born in 1888 or 1889. Respondent assumed the burden of proving he had been born in the latter year, and swore his mother had so informed him. He offered no other proof. In rebuttal, a duly authenticated certificate was produced showing the birth of a son, William, to William Joyce and his wife, Maggie Nee, at County Galway, Ireland, on April 25, 1888; it was also proven that the maiden name of respondent's mother was Maggie Nee.
The motion for judgment rests upon respondent's contention that the evidence was insufficient to identify the birth record as being that of the respondent. This position is not well taken. Not only is identity of name prima facie evidence of identity of person (Com. v. Cover, 281 Pa. 429 , 434 ), but one Thomas Sullivan testified explicitly that his wife's sister, Maggie Nee, was the wife of William Joyce and the mother of the respondent. We know of no principle of law which prohibits a person from testifying to the maiden name of his sister-in-law and identifying her and her child.
In arguing for a new trial, respondent complains because the court did not permit the jury to determine respondent's citizenship from the fact that he had believed he was a citizen and, acting on that belief, had voted, served in the United States Army, taken the oath of office as township commissioner, owned dogs and obtained hunting licenses. While such acts and belief would be evidence from which it might be deduced that the person in question had taken out naturalization papers (Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 ), such deduction had no proper place in the present litigation,
in view of respondent's express admission that naturalization papers had not been issued to himself. The sole question for determination was whether respondent was under age when his father was naturalized. If he was, he thereby became a citizen; if he was not, he remained an alien, and his subsequent belief in his citizenship, although sincere, was wholly immaterial to the issue.
The verdict is eminently proper and sustained by the great weight of the credible proof. Respondent not only disclaimed knowledge of his mother's maiden name and of the fact that it was inscribed on her tombstone but failed to call his own father to prove he was born in 1889. In applying for employment over a period of more than 25 years, he repeatedly stated his age as being one year greater than that for which he now contends. He was not a credible witness, the birth record unquestionably was his own, and a verdict in his favor would have been a mockery of justice.
Verdict and judgment for relator and against respondent. Respondent appealed.
Error assigned , among others, were various parts of charge. Source: CourtListener
