No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 531 



IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF rENNSYLVANIA 



COMMONWEALTH 



vs. 

 CHARLES FALK. 



Filed Feb. 24, 1915. 

 ORLADY, J. 



No. 89 October Term, 1914. Ai)peal by 

 the Coiniuouwealtli from the judgment of 

 the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lancas- 

 ter County. 



For the reasons given in Commonwealth v. Falk, No. 90 October 

 Term, 1914, the judgment in this case is reversed and the record 

 remitted to the court below with a procedendo. 



IN THE SUPERIOR COUHT OF PENNSYLVANIA 



COMMONWEALTH "| 

 OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 vs. 

 CHARLES FALK. 



Filed Feb. 24, 1915. 

 Orlady, J. 



No. 90, October Term, 1914. Appeal by 

 the Copimonwealth from the judgment of 

 the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lancas- 

 ter County. 



The indictment in this case charges a violation of law, viz: "It 

 shall be unlawful for any person to drive or move or transport on 

 or across or along any public highway, or in wagons or in railroad 

 cars or others vehicles, any animal affected with any disease enumer- 

 ated in section nine of this act, or with any disease now or hereafter 

 adjudged and proclaimed by the State Livestock Sanitary Board be 

 of a transmissible character, except upon permission in writing from 

 the State Livestock Sanitary Board, or any member, officer, or 

 agent, of the Board." The defendant filed a demurrer alleging 

 that no indictable offense was set out; that the act under 

 which the indictment was drawn is unconstitutional, as it vio- 

 lates sec. 3, of art. 3, of the constitution of the Commonwealth 

 of Pennsylvania, in having more than one subject; that it is un- 

 constitutional as it confers legislative powers upon the State Live- 

 stock Sanitary Board; that it failed to set forth that the animal 

 suffering with tuberculosis was a domestic animal, or was one of 

 the animals defined in sec. 1 of the act, which was sustained 'by 

 the Court. 



The construction placed upon this statute of July 22, 1913, P. L. 

 929, is entirely too narrow and refined to meet the substantial and 

 vital demands of tliis important legislation. The act in question 

 is the last declaration of the legislative will starting in 1897, and 

 it has been enlarged in nearly every succeeding session of the as- 

 sembly, so that the act of 1913 stands as a codification of all previous 

 legislation relating to the subjects embraced in its title, wliich is 

 as follows: "An Act relating to domestic animals; defining domes- 

 tic animals so as to include poultry; providing methods of improving 

 the quality thereof, and of preventing, controlling, and eradicating 

 diseases thereof; imposing certain duties upon ])ractitioners of 

 veterinary medicine in I'ennsylvania ; regulating the manufacture 

 and sale of tuberculin, mallein and other biological products for use 

 with domestic animals; defining the powers and duties of the State 



