
    Commonwealth v. Davidson, Appellant.
    Argued April 22, 1963.
    Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
    
      Albert Prutzman, for appellant.
    
      Roger N. Nanovic, Assistant District Attorney, with him George Kerestes, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    
      October 10, 1963:
   Opinion by

Mb. Justice O’Brien,

This appeal is from tbe judgment of sentence of tbe Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Carbon County, after appellant was found guilty of speeding. Tbe facts in this case are as follows: Tbe defendant-appellant, Sol A. Davidson, was arrested while driving on tbe Pennsylvania Turnpike, for driving at a speed in tbe neighborhood of one hundred miles per hour. On March 6, 1961, an information was filed by an officer of tbe Pennsylvania State Police charging tbe appellant with a violation of §1205 of tbe Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, 75 P.S. §1205(b). Tbe notice which tbe justice of tbe peace mailed to appellant was dated March 4, 1961 (an obvious inadvertent error) and tbe notice was mailed March 8, 1961. On March 13, tbe defendant-appellant posted bond and waived a bearing, before tbe justice of tbe peace and filed a transcript for a trial in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Carbon County.

The appellant contends that tbe notice be received was defective and, therefore, be was not properly before tbe court.

This contention is entirely without merit, even if we concede that tbe notice was defective. Tbe defendant voluntarily placed himself before tbe court, by bis appearance when be waived a bearing before tbe justice of tbe peace and posted an appearance bond. Cf. Commonwealth v. Reed, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 249, 31 A. 2d 595 (1943); Commonwealth v. Maun, 68 Pa. D. & C. 288 (1949); Commonwealth v. Jiras, 4 Pa. D. & C. 2d 655 (1955) ; see also Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, §1205, 75 P.S. §1205.

Tbe second point raised by tbe appellant is that tbe necessary jurisdictional facts were not put on tbe record. He complains that, at the trial, tbe Commonwealth did not introduce evidence that tbe information was lodged before the justice of the peace nearest to the first Turnpike exit from the scene of the alleged violation. In Commonwealth v. Coldsmith, 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 283, 106 A. 2d 649 (1954), the Superior Court held: “No attempt has been made by appellants to prove that the justice was in the wrong township or that he was not the nearest available magistrate. Where the defendant is brought before a justice of the peace in the same township as the situs of the offense, it is presumed he is the nearest available magistrate, and the defendant has the burden of proving the contrary.”

Here, the justice of the peace is in the Township where the violation occurred and there is no contention by appellant that he was not the proper magistrate.

Finally, appellant argues that there was no legally credible evidence to support his conviction. This appeal being before us on broad certiorari, we must determine whether the findings of the court below are supported by competent evidence. Commonwealth v. Brose, 412 Pa. 276, 194 A. 2d 322 (1963); First Bellefonte Bank v. Myers, 410 Pa. 298, 301, 188 A. 2d 7262 (1963). We have examined the record and find that the Commonwealth presented an overwhelming ease. The evidence is such that any other result would be, to say the least, quite surprising.

Judgment affirmed.  