Summary
In Com. v. Cornetti, 373 Pa. 407, 96 A.2d 378, this Court again reversed the Court below where the facts were exactly the same as in Com. v. Matil, supra.
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. StrobelOpinion
March 31, 1953.
April 22, 1953.
Motor vehicles — Licenses — Suspension — Excessive speed — Economic hardship — Discretion of court below — Appellate review — Vehicle Code.
1. Commonwealth v. Emerick, 373 Pa. 388, followed. [408]
2. On appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the court of common pleas setting aside a suspension by the Secretary of Revenue of an operator's license for operating a motor vehicle, in which it appeared that the operator traveled on a public highway at seventy miles an hour where the maximum lawful speed was fifty miles per hour; and that the court below found that the operator would be unable to continue his employment without a driver's license and revoked the suspension solely on the ground of economic hardship; it was Held, in the circumstances, that the order of the court below constituted a manifest abuse of discretion and reversible error. [408-9]
Before STERN, C. J., STEARNE, JONES, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 62, March T., 1953, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, Dec. T., 1952, No. 7, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Charles Cornetti, Jr. Order reversed.
Appeal by motor vehicle operator from decision of Secretary of Revenue suspending operating privileges. Before PURVIS, P. J.
Order entered sustaining appeal and directing reinstatement of license. Commonwealth appealed.
Randolph C. Ryder, Deputy Attorney General, with him Robert B. Greer, Jr., and Robert E. Woodside, Attorney General, for appellant.
No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the court of common pleas setting aside a suspension by the Secretary of Revenue of an operator's license for operating a motor vehicle. The offense charged was speed on a public highway at seventy miles per hour when the maximum lawful speed was fifty miles per hour.
What we said in Commonwealth v. Emerick, 373 Pa. 388, 96 A.2d 370, relating to legal principles and construction of The Vehicle Code, has similar application to the facts in the present case.
Charles Cornetti, Jr., defendant, was charged by a state policeman with traveling on a public highway on March 22, 1952, after dark, at a speed of seventy miles per hour. The road was dry and traffic moderate. Such speed was a violation of The Vehicle Code. Defendant did not deny the violation, and the only reason given by him for such violation was, "I was late for an appointment." He was twenty years of age, unmarried, and living home with his father and mother. He had been driving for four years; had been fined several times for "going through a stop sign"; and had been involved in an accident, although no charge was made against him. The order of suspension was rescinded solely on the ground of economic hardship. In the order the court said: ". . . it appearing to the Court that the petitioner's violation did not endanger the life or property of any person; and it further appearing to the Court that the petitioner would be unable to continue in his employment without a driver's license which would result in a great and undue hardship not justified by the facts of this case, the prayer of said petition is granted, and the Order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending the license of Charles Cornetti, Jr. is hereby set aside and full driving privileges are hereby restored to the said Charles Cornetti, Jr."
Such an order under the circumstances of this case constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion.
The order is reversed at the cost of the appellee.