Commonwealth v. Wertheimer
| Decision Date | 22 May 1903 |
| Docket Number | 135-1902 |
| Citation | 23 Pa.Super. 192 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Wertheimer, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued November 14, 1902
Appeal by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. June T., 1901, No. 237 on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Nathaniel S Wertheimer et al.
Indictment for conspiracy.
Verdict of guilty.
Error assigned was as follows: The learned judge erred in the charge to the jury in that the charge was argumentative in its character, and called undue attention to certain testimony produced by the commonwealth, and failed to state the testimony produced by the defendants, said charge being as follows, quoting the charge in full.
W. K Stevens, of Stevens & Stevens, and George S. Graham, with them William J. Rourke, for appellant.
E. J Nathan, of Cardozo & Nathan, and C. H. Ruhl, with them George W. Wagner, district attorney, A. H. Rothermel and H. P. Keiser, for appellee.
Before Beaver, Orlady, W. W. Porter and W. D. Porter, JJ.
The defendant, with two others, was indicted upon a charge of conspiracy to cheat and defraud a fire insurance company by means of a false proof of loss. After a nine days' trial the defendants were convicted. The testimony covers over 500 pages and the only assignment of error is to the charge of the court below, the appellant contending that the trial judge prominently presented the theory and strong features of the prosecution and ignored the theory of the defendants and the facts upon which it was based, and that the charge was in the nature of an argument in answer to the closing argument of the defendants' counsel. No points were submitted by the defendants asking for special instructions, and after a careful examination of the charge and all of the testimony, we are satisfied that the case was fairly tried. The jury was cautioned a number of times to examine all the testimony carefully and dispassionately, with perfect impartiality towards both sides, to consider the credibility of the witnesses, to look at the circumstances under which they testified, to examine their testimony through the bias that might surround it, whether it might be the effect of prejudice, passion, feeling or interest, to reconcile, if possible, discrepancies in the evidence, but above all to reach the truth through the evidence and that alone. The defendants were represented by able and zealous counsel, who strenuously presented their theory of the cause. The facts presented on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Russell
...(1965). But this is clearly a matter of discretion. Commonwealth v. Walker, 178 Pa.Super. 522, 116 A.2d 230 (1955); Commonwealth v. Wertheimer, 23 Pa.Super. 192 (1903). In the instant case, we conclude that the charge of the trial judge regarding credibility of witnesses was most F. Biased ......
-
Perigo v. Deegan
...... judge be reversed on the basis that his jury instructions. were inadequate or misleading. See, e. g., Commonwealth. v. Wertheimer, 23 Pa.Super. 192 (1903); Blank v. Barnhart, 17 Pa.Super. 214 (1901). Here, appellant. concedes that the [288 Pa.Super. 100] ......
-
Perigo v. Deegan
...a trial judge be reversed on the basis that his jury instructions were inadequate or misleading. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Wertheimer, 23 Pa.Super. 192 (1903); Blank v. Barnhart, 17 Pa.Super. 214 (1901). Here, appellant concedes that the [288 Pa.Super. 100] instructions, as given, correct......