Commonwealth v. Pearlman
Citation | 191 A. 365,126 Pa.Super. 461 |
Decision Date | 15 April 1937 |
Docket Number | 368-1936 |
Parties | Commonwealth v. Pearlman, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued September 28, 1936
Appeal from judgment of Q. S. Phila. Co., Feb. Sessions, 1936, No 473, in case of Commonwealth v. Samuel I. Pearlman, alias Samuel I. Perlman.
Indictment charging defendant with being concerned in the making of a forged bail bond and justification of surety, and with actually uttering and publishing the same. Before Lamberton J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict of guilty and judgment of sentence thereon, Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned related to errors in charge of the court, rulings on the admission of evidence, and the dismissal of a motion to set aside the verdict and a motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Abraham Wernick, for appellant.
Vincent P. McDevitt, Assistant District Attorney, with him Charles F. Kelley, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ. Opinion by James, J.
Samuel I. Pearlman was convicted and sentenced on an indictment to No. 473, February Term, 1936, charging him with having on the 13th day of November, 1934, been concerned in the making of a fraudulent written instrument commonly known as and called a recognizance bail bond and justification of surety, before a magistrate, and with actually uttering and publishing it. Although sentence was solely on this indictment, he had been jointly tried and convicted upon twelve other indictments charging similar offenses on different dates before different magistrates, and an indictment charging conspiracy. Sentence was suspended on these indictments. In all of the indictments, Michael Warren and his wife, Ethel Warren, alias Dora Sarsoff, were jointly indicted with defendant. Prior to the trial, Michael Warren and Ethel Warren pleaded guilty to all of the above indictments and also to a number of indictments charging them with perjury, upon which sentence was not imposed. Defendant's motion for a new trial having been refused, sentence was imposed, from which this appeal was taken.
Appellant submits ninety-one separate assignments of error. We have given consideration to all of them, but owing to their number and character, we shall only discuss at length those assignments which we believe worthy of consideration. The record contains nearly 600 pages of testimony, a resume of which cannot be better stated than as set forth in the opinion of the court below in refusing the motion for a new trial:
Appellant's argument may be divided and considered under three general headings: First, errors in the charge of the court; second, rulings on the admission of evidence; and third, the dismissal of a motion to set aside the verdict and a motion for a new trial.
In regard to the charge, the first group of assignments, 78, 79 and 80, relate to that portion of the charge which states that the jury might convict if the defendant knew that the maker of the bail bond was a married woman or that the bail bond contained false statements. The relevant portions of the charge are as follows:
The record is replete with testimony from which the jury could find that appellant knew Ethel Warren was not Dora Sarsoff, that she was a married woman and as such could not enter bail, and that the statements made in the bonds were false.
Appellant contends that the charge as quoted above is erroneous because the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 382, § 169, 18 PS § 3631, applies only to forgeries and not to the making, uttering or publishing of instruments which contain false statements but not forged signatures. He argues that there is a distinction between fraudulently made instruments and fraudulent instruments, and that the statute applies only to the former. Appellant relies largely on De Rose v. People, L. R. A. 1918 C. 1193-95, a Colorado case. In that case it was held that the defendant, in making up and signing a time roll, in which he had made a false statement, did not violate a statute prohibiting the "false making" of an instrument. In Biles v. Com., 32 Pa. 529, it was held that the making of a false entry in a journal by a bookkeeper with intent to defraud his employer was a forgery at common law. The forgery was perpetrated by the false addition of the items of cash from bills receivable on a page of the journal of the firm.
A year later, the Act of 1860, supra, under which appellant was indicted, was enacted. It reads: "If any person shall fraudulently make, sign, alter, utter or publish, or be concerned in the fraudulent making, signing, altering, uttering, or publishing any written instrument, other than notes, bills, checks or drafts already mentioned, to the prejudice of another's right, with intent to defraud any person or body corporate, or shall fraudulently cause or procure the same to be done, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and to undergo an imprisonment, by separate or solitary confinement at labor, not exceeding ten years."
It is pointed out in Purdon's historical note that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Kauffman
...cannot be convicted of dereliction: Com. v. Nye, 240 Pa. 359, 87 A. 585; Com. v. Nelson, 294 Pa. 544, 144 A. 542; Com. v. Pearlman, 126 Pa.Super. 461, 191 A. 365. We find no error in the remainder of charge, which fairly reviewed the evidence on both sides and accurately instructed the jury......
-
Provident Trust Co. v. National Surety Co.
...of a loan from the plaintiff, secured by warehouse certificates for goods which did not exist, is not forgery. In Commonwealth v. Pearlman, 126 Pa.Super. 461, 191 A. 365, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania had before it the question whether the Criminal Act of 1860, 18 P.S. § 3631, of Penns......
-
Commonwealth v. Hartung
...judgments of sentence must be sustained although the proofs are insufficient to support convictions on the other counts. Com. v. Pearlman, 126 Pa.Super. 461, 191 A. 365. together, operated the Biltmore Hotel at 1513 Arch Street in Philadelphia. The police in plain clothes entered the hotel ......
-
Provident Trust Co. v. National Surety Corporation, 8329.
...as forgeries; both sides agree that the law of Pennsylvania governs. That law on the point involved is set out in Commonwealth v. Pearlman, 126 Pa.Super. 461, 191 A. 365. The relevant facts of that case are stated in the opinion which reads, 126 Pa.Super. at pages 467, 468, 191 A. at page "......