Commonwealth v. BAUDER
145 A.2d 915
Pa. Super. Ct.
1958
Check Treatment

Commonwealth v. Bauder et al., Appellants

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 14, 1958

188 Pa. Super. Ct. 424

tionable, in a constitutional sense, as the arbitrary discrimination in the enactment. The guarantee of equal protection of the laws mean that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the law which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.

;
. Equal protection of the law is secured if the law operates on all alike, and does not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government in enforcing the law as to some and passive condonation as to others.
.

The action of the majority of this court, without opinion, is based upon a mere conclusion of the court below which I consider unsound, archaic and as making an act illegal on a particular day of the week which is perfectly proper on any other day. I therefore dissent and would reverse the court below.

WATKINS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

Argued September 8, 1958. Before RHODES, P. J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.

Harold E. Kohn, with him Morris Efron, George J. Joseph, Harry A. Kalish, William T. Coleman, Jr., Philip P. Kalodner, and Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Kohn & Dilks, for appellants.

Paul A. McGinley, District Attorney, for appellee.

OPINION PER CURIAM, November 14, 1958:

The orders of the court below are affirmed on the opinion of President Judge HENNINGER as reported in

.

DISSENTING OPINION BY GUNTHER, J.:

Substantially for the reasons expressed in

, and for the admitted discrimination which I consider arbitrary and in violation of the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution, I dissent.

WATKINS, J., joins in this dissent.