Commonwealth v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 01 April 1909 |
| Docket Number | 210-1908 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Stanley, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued November 9, 1908
Appeal by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Montgomery Co.-1908, No 36, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Eugene Stanley.
Indictment for violation of election laws.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.
At the trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty, upon which the defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $ 10.00 and undergo an imprisonment of nine months.
Error assigned was in not directing a verdict of not guilty.
Affirmed.
J. P Knipe, of Wagner & Knipe, with him N.H. Larzelere, and Henry I. Fox, for appellant.
Theo. Lane Bean, with him J. B. Larzelere, Jr., district attorney and Charles D. McAvoy, assistant district attorney, for appellee.
Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.
The defendant was found guilty under an indictment containing three counts, the first of which was founded on the Act of July 14, 1897, P. L. 261, in which he was charged with " fraudulently, unlawfully, knowingly and willfully" voting at an election for public municipal officers in the election district of the first ward of the borough of Bridgeport, Montgomery county, he not then and there being a person qualified by law to vote. The second count was founded on the 125th section of the Act of July 2, 1839, P. L. 519, in which he was charged with " fraudulently, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly publishing, uttering and making use of a forged or false tax receipt with intent to impose the same upon and deceive the inspectors and judge of elections at the same election," etc. The third count was founded on the Act of July 15, 1897, P. L. 276, in which he was charged with " fraudulently, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly" voting at the same election upon a tax receipt obtained within less than thirty days prior to the date of holding the said election. The several offenses were set out in the indictment in the words of the respective statutes.
While there are a number of assignments of error, the principal contention of the defendant on this appeal is, that there was not sufficient legal proof of guilt to warrant the verdict, and that the court erred in not directing a verdict of " Not guilty." After a careful examination of the whole record we are confident of the righteousness of the verdict, and that the disputed facts were fully and fairly submitted to the jury by the court, and they fully warranted the verdict of guilty as returned by the jury. In the light of this finding, the case stands as a deliberate violation of the election laws of the commonwealth, meriting prompt and severe punishment.
While the third count in the indictment was presented jointly with the first and second, the evidence in relation to the use of the tax receipt was of such a doubtful and unsatisfactory character in showing that it had been obtained within less than thirty days prior to the date of holding said election that it might well have been withdrawn from the consideration of the jury; and in disposing of this case, it is not necessary to sustain that count in order to affirm the judgment, and had it been withdrawn from the consideration of the jury, the result would doubtless have been the same,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Neuman.
...et al., 126 Pa.Super 461, 470, 191 A. 365; Com. v. Rothensies, 64 Pa.Super. 395, 426, affirmed 256 Pa. 337, 100 A. 828; Com. v. Stanley, 39 Pa.Super. 402, 404.30 A.2d 704 That portion of appellant's argument which challenges the authority of the Pennsylvania Securities Commission to institu......
-
Com. ex rel. Tyson v. Day
...one count in the indictment which will sustain the sentence, it cannot be reversed. Com. v. Bradley, 16 Pa.Super. 561, 563; Com. v. Stanley, 39 Pa.Super. 402, 404. Relator's extended argument that the indictment did not state any offense under an applicable statute is devoid of merit. The j......
-
Commonwealth v. Pearlman
...can be no reversal although there are other counts which are not sustained by the evidence: Com. v. McDermott, 37 Pa.Super. 1; Com. v. Stanley, 39 Pa.Super. 402; Com. v. Rothensies, 64 Pa.Super. The third group of alleged errors in the charge is the refusal to affirm the appellant's 1st, 2n......