The C. Wilderman Co. v. St. Mary's Church of Plymouth, Pa. we think he had a right to do. (Moore v. Messersmith 2 District Reports 483.) It is argued, however, that from an inspection of the summons and the Constable's return it is apparent that the abbreviation "Inc.," has been added after the papers were otherwise complete. We are not convinced that the paper exhibits internal evidence of such alteration, but if so, the presumption is that the omission of the abbreviation was a clerical mistake which was corrected as soon as made. (Specht v. Sipe 15 Pa. Superior 207-212.) The exceptions are dismissed and the judgment is affirmed. Reported by ERNEST K. LITTLE, Esq., Turtle Creek Land & Improvement Company v. A. P. McMullin. A Justice does not constitute himself an Agent for plaintiff in writing a letter stating that legal proceedings will be commenced for the collection of a bill, if not paid. JUSTICE, AGENT FOR PLAINTIFF-CERTIORARI. No. 419, January Term, 1904, C. P. Allegheny Co. Fagan & Magee, Attorneys for Plaintiff in error. Certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny County, Pa., on the 12th day of November, 1903. EXCEPTIONS: The Turtle Creek Land & Improvement Company, plaintiff in error above named, excepts to the record of the Turtle Creek Land & Improvement Company v. A, P. McMullin. Justice of the Peace, and the judgment entered therein for the following reasons: First, The Justice exhibited partiality towards the defendant in error in the consideration of the said case. Second, The Justice was the Agent of the defendant in error in the attempt to collect the amount claimed, as appears by the following communication sent by said Justice of the Peace to Plaintiff in error. MR. JOHN E. KANE, "RANKIN, PA., July 28th, 1903. Treasurer of the Turtle Creek Land & Improvent Co., Dear Sir: Messrs. M. G. McFeely and A. P. McMullen have placed claims of thirty dollars each, making a total of sixty dollars in my hands against your company, and if not paid on or before August 1st, 1903, legal proceedings will be commenced for the same. Respectfully yours, GIDEON H. JAQUAY, J. P., PER CURIAM. Rankin, Pa." And now, the 1st day of March, 1904, on argument, exceptions dismissed and the judgment of the Magistrate affirmed. Joseph F. Mayhugh, for the defendant in error, cited the following cases: Wagner v. Hoffman, No. 32, January Term, 1902, Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Justices' Law Reporter, Vol. 1, page 1, also Sample v. Shidel, 20 Pennsylvania C. C., page 357, also Reported by JOSEPH F. MAYHUGH, Esq,, Pittsburg, Pa. Henry H. Wassel, Trustee in Bankruptcy Judgment having been given against defendant by default, June 9, 1902, defendant having entered stay of execution August 11, 1902, and execution having issued March 11, 1903, a certiorari taken on March 12, 1903, is too late, he having clearly waived his right to stand upon the irregularity, to-wit: A defective service of the summons of which he complains. Entirely apart from the question of reasonable time as applied to the period in which, under the Act of 1810, a certiorari must be sued out either after the rendition of the judgment, or after knowledge of such rendition, the entry of bail for stay of execution on such judgment is equivalent to an appearance and cures an irregular service of summons. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT-STAY OF EXECUTION-EXECUTION -CERTIORARI-DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF SUMMONS-LACHES. No. 60, May Term, 1903, C. P. of Luzerne County. Certiorari to I. V. Robbins, Alderman of the 10th Ward, Wilkes Barre, Pa. Ernest K. Little, Esq., Attorney for plaintiffs, Opinion by WHEATON, A. L. J., February 15, 1904. Now, May 6th, 1903, defendant excepts to the sufficiency of the judgment entered by the Alderman in this case for the following reason: The Alderman did not have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. OPINION: Action of assumpsit before an Alderman. Summons defectively served. Judgment against defendant by default June 9th, 1902. August 11th, 1902, defendant takes stay of execution, and enters security therefor. March 11th, 1903, execution issued. March 12th, 1903, certiorari received from Court of Common Pleas, and execution superseded. This is a summary of the record as exhibited by the Henry H. Wassel, Trustee in Bankruptcy of H. Cantor's Sons v. J. J. Mangan. transcript, which was sent up in obedience to the writ, and filed March 19th, 1903. Because of the defective service of the summons, the Alderman had no jurisdiction of the defendant's person. This was good grounds for reversal on certiorari. Such lack of jurisdiction, not going to the subject matter of the suit, arose from an irregularity which the defendant might lawfully waive. If in fact, he did waive it, there would no longer be any objections to the validity of the judgment. He knew of the judgment in August, 1902, when he took a stay of execution, and it was seven months after that before he resorted to certiorari. By this conduct he has clearly waived his right to stand upon the irregularity of which he complains. Entirely apart from the question of reasonable time, as applied to the period within which, under the Act of 1810, a certiorari must be sued out, either after the rendition of the judgment, or after knowledge of such rendition, the entry of bail for stay of execution on such judgment is equivalent to an appearance, and cures an irregular service of the sum mons. The exceptions are overruled and proceedings affirmed. Commonwealth ex rel. v. Directors of the Poor, Allegheny Co. Where a person suffering from small pox is rendered indigent by reason of quarantine enforced by the Board of Health of a Borough under the Act of May 11, 1893, P. L. 44, it appearing that by the arrest and separation of this person and her family, they have been unable to earn their living, and are unable to purchase food and procure medical attendance, and it further appearing that this inability is caused solely by their confinement,-the power of arrest and so separating persons from the community, which may be done in their own houses or elsewhere, and of treating the sick, implies the duty as well as the power to furnish necessary food and attendance. No doubt, fuel, and even clothing, might become necessary under certain circumstances. The "arrest and separation" of these persons by the Board of Health implies the duty and corresponding power of the board to furnish them with food and medicines if necessary. It does not, by any means, follow that the Board of Health is to support every person quarantined. If the quarantined persons have property or credit which they may use to support themselves, they cannot complain if the Board of Health does not provide them anything more than the reasonable opportunity to send out and purchase what is needed. The power and duty of arresting and shutting up persons unquestionably carries with it the power and duty of feeding them and providing them with medical attention, and that duty rests primarily with the Board of Health. MANDAMUS-BOARD OF HEALTH-BOROUGHS-INDIGENT No. 469 October Term, 1903, C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co In re petition for mandamus. OPINION: The petition herein sets out that in August last, one Mary Stuart, a resident of the Borough of Sharpsburg, was attacked with the small pox, and that she and her minor child and other persons, adults, who were living with her in the same house, were prevented from following their usual occupations, being dependent on their daily wages for a livelihood, and that by reason of the quarantine they thus became indigent. That an order of relief was issued and served upon the Directors of the Poor, requiring them to afford relief to these indigent persons, and that they have disregarded it and failed to contribute either medicines or food. Wherefore, |