31 Pa. Super. 167 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1906
1. It is objected that the petition did not set forth that the division of the borough into wards was necessary “ to.suit the convenience of the inhabitants thereof,” but only represented
2. After setting forth the reasons for the division into wards the petition proceeds, “ and to that end they do respectfully pray the court to appoint three impartial men to inquire into the propriety and expediency of granting the prayer of the petitioners and to report their opinion on such propriety and expediency, .... and to return a plot of the borough with, lines and boundaries of the wards if they recommend any,” etc. This quotation from the petition is a conclusive answer to the objection that a division of 'the borough into vfards was not prayed for. The petition could not be construed otherwise without resorting to hypercriticism. /
3. The remaining objection urged by the appellants is that there is no finding by the commissioners that)' the division recommended will-“ suit the convenience of the inhabitants.” But
All the assignments of error are overruled and the proceedings are affirmed.