92 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



because be was au officer of tbe Society for tbe Preveution of Crueltv 

 to Animals, Scbuyler. P. J., delivering tbe opinion of tbe courts, says: 

 "Tbe grand jury ignored tbe bill and imposed tbe costs on tbe prose- 

 cutor. Tbe agents of tbe S. P. C. A., are regarded as peace officers, 

 and as sucb are entitled to tbe protection of tbe Court.'' 



Tbat tbe Court possesses tbe power to control tbe findings of a 

 grand jury as to costs, is abundantly sbown by numerous autborities, 

 among wbicb are tbe following: 



Conimonwealtb vs. Bain, 1st County Court Reports 25. 



Connoly vs. Lackawanna County, 1st County Court Reports 26. 



Commonwealtb vs. Jackson 1st County Court Reports 38. 



Otber autborities migbt be cited, but it is respectfully submitted 

 tbat even tbese are not needed to satisfy tbis Court of its inberent 

 power to control tbe finding of tbe grand jury as to costs in tbese 

 cases. 



Tbese prosecutions were commenced by a public official in tbe per- 

 formance of bis official duty. He proceeded by tbe direction of bis 

 superior officer, connected witb tbe Executive Department of tbe 

 Commonwealtb. Tbat be is entitled to tne protection wbicb tbis 

 honorable court bas tbe power to grant, w^e respectfully contend, 

 and we respectfully ask tbe court to relieve bim from tbe payment 

 of any costs w'batsoever. 



In order tbat no injustice may be done to anyone entitled to costs, 

 it is respectfully suggested tbat this honorable court direct the 

 re-submission to tbe grand jury of tbe indictments in tbese cases or of 

 such number of them as tbe court may deem proper to re-submit. 



If true bills are returned, as we respectfully submit the evidence 

 requires, and tbe defendants are brought to trial and convicted, tbis 

 court has ample power to make such order, in regard to the prose- 

 cution of more than one indictment against a single defendant, and 

 in regard to tbe payment of costs upon tbe otber indictments, as will 

 be just and i)roper. If tbe law^ bas been violated repeatedly by any 

 defendant, then it would be manifestly proper, in case of his con- 

 viction upon one indictment, to direct the payment of costs upon 

 the other indictments, and permit a nolle prosqui to be entered on 

 tbe other indictments upon the payment of costs. In tbis way the 

 costs could be imposed upon those, who, after a hearing, have been 

 sbown by tbe evidence, to have violated tbe law, and he, who 

 has acted only in bis official capacity and solely for the purpose of 

 performing bis official duly, would be relieved from the injustice 

 sought to be inflicted upon bim by the grand jury. 



If tbis court shall desire to make in(|uiry into the facts, or if 

 the facts are stated in the petitions now before tbis honorable court 

 are challenged, we respectfully ask tbat ruli's be granted to show 

 cause why the iiidictments should not be re-submitted, and why the 



