Summary
In Borough of Hanover v. Criswell, 205 Pa. Super. 65, 66 (1965), 208 A.2d 39, the Pennsylvania court dealt with the principle of ejusdem generis and reached a conclusion similar to the one we have reached here. Also, Supreme Court decisions clearly show that the rule of ejusdem generis does not prevail when the result of its use would be contrary to the obvious purpose of the statute in question.
Summary of this case from Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc.Opinion
March 8, 1965.
March 18, 1965.
Taxation — Amusements — Bowling — Words and Phrases — "Admission" — "Engaging in" — Ejusdem generis.
In this case, in which it appeared that a borough ordinance, which defined "admission" as a monetary charge for the privilege of attending or engaging in amusements, and "amusement" as all manner and form of entertainment, including, but not limited to, theatrical performances, operatic performances, motion picture exhibitions, carnivals, shows, concerts, lectures and sports events, imposed a tax upon the sale of admissions to any amusement within the borough; that defendants, who owned and operated bowling lanes in the borough, contended that, since the ordinance listed a number of specific forms of entertainment, all of which were of the spectator type as opposed to the type in which there is a participation, the rule of ejusdem generis required the exclusion of bowling; and that the court below, holding that such a strict construction would render meaningless the phrase "engaging in" in the definition of "admission" in the ordinance, that the doctrine of ejusdem generis was not applicable because it was not the intention of the borough council to restrict the application of the tax to admisions to spectator events, and that bowling was an amusement within the meaning of the ordinance, entered judgment against defendants; it was Held that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
Before ERVIN, P.J., WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, and HOFFMAN, JJ. (FLOOD, J., absent).
Appeal, No. 60, March T., 1965, from order of Court of Common Pleas of York County, May T., 1964, No. 619, in case of The Borough of Hanover v. Charles Criswell et al. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 35 Pa. D. C. 2d 203.
Appeal by taxpayer from decision of justice of the peace finding defendants guilty of violation of borough ordinance. Before ATKINS, P.J.
Defendants adjudged guilty and judgment of sentence entered. Defendants appealed.
Harry C. Elsesser, Jr., for appellants.
Donald E. Albright, for appellee.
Argued March 8, 1965.
The order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge ATKINS, for the court below, reported at 35 Pa. D. C. 2d 203.