Opinion
APRIL TERM, 1795.
Bradford and Ingersoll, in support of the motion, contended, that the usage of re-appointing three of the old managers, was beneficial, and ought to be considered as the genuine construction of the law.
Rawle, in opposing the motion, admitted the usage, but insisted, that, on the terms of the act of Assembly, the defendants were authorised to appoint six new members at every half-year election.
THIS was a motion for a mandamus, commanding the defendants to proceed to another election of the managers of the House of Employment. By the act of Assembly, passed the 25th of March 1782 (2 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 17. ) it was declared, that "the Guardians of the Poor in the City of " Philadelphia shall half-yearly appoint six of their number, to "superintend the Alms-House and House of Employment;" and it was agreed, in point of fact, that the Guardians of the Poor had uniformly made the half-yearly appointments; but, with a view to ensure the benefit of experience, they had always taken care to keep three of the six old managers in office, 'till the last election, when six managers entirely new were appointed.
THE COURT, after advisement, rejected the motion.