Constitutional law — Statutes — Title — Magistrates — Age — Act of May 10, 1927, P. L. 866.
1. Section 8 of the Magistrates' Court Act of May 10, 1927, P. L. 866, which provides an age requirement for magistrates, is not unconstitutional on the ground that the subject matter of the Act in this respect is not adequately and clearly expressed in its title, as required by Article III, section 3, of the Constitution. [64-5]
Constitutional law — Legislative power — Magistrates — Age requirement — Reasonableness — Person not of prescribed age at commencement of term of office — Act of May 10, 1927, P. L. 866.
2. Section 8 of the Magistrates' Court Act of May 10, 1927, P. L. 866, is not unconstitutional on the ground that the legislature has no authority to impose an age qualification upon a constitutional office where the Constitution itself has not done so. [65-6]
3. Power not expressly withheld from the legislature inheres in it, and this is especially so when the Constitution is not self-executing. [66]
4. Section 8 of the Act of 1927, in providing that magistrates shall be at least thirty-five years of age, is not unconstitutional on the ground that the age requirement fixed is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, an invalid exercise of the legislative power. [63-4]
5. The courts have no authority to interfere with the discretion of the legislature in the exercise of its power to prescribe an age qualification for magistrates, except where its action is so manifestly arbitrary and capricious as to amount to an abuse of the discretion conferred. [63]
6. To be unreasonable and capricious, an age qualification must be such as to so limit the electorate's field of choice in that respect as either, altogether to prevent the filling of the office, or, to establish a basis of classification as to age which bears no rational relationship to the functions and requirements of the office to be filled. [63]
7. Under section 8 of the Act of 1927, a person elected to the office of magistrate is disqualified from holding the office if he has not reached the prescribed age on the date when his term of office begins. [62]
Quo warranto — Public office — Burden of proof — Personal qualification of respondent.
8. In quo warranto proceedings instituted by the Commonwealth, the burden of proof to show good title to public office is upon the respondent. [72]
9. Such burden is not met by producing a commission from the Governor or a certificate of election where the challenge is to some personal qualification of the respondent. [72]
Argued October 31, 1940.
PER CURIAM, November 6, 1940:
The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the able President Judge of the court below.
We add, because the question was argued before us, although apparently not in the court below, that the burden of proof to show good title to the office, quo warranto proceedings having been instituted by the Commonwealth, was upon respondent: 11 Standard Penna. Practice 294; 51 C. J. 355. See also Com. v. Commercial Bank, 28 Pa. 383. The burden is not met by producing a commission from the Governor or a certificate of election where the challenge is to some personal qualification of the respondent.