Appeal of Roberts

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Appeal of Roberts

17 A. 538, 126 Pa. 102, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 841

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 29, 1889

DocketNo. 101

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A. 538 (Appeal of Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appeal of Roberts, 17 A. 538, 126 Pa. 102, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 841 (Pa. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The assignments of error which allege that the court erred in receiving the books of L. C. Paine & Co. in evidence, are of little importance. The mere admission of incompetent evidence by the Orphans’ Court, or an auditor, is not of itself sufficient to justify a reversal. It must appear that the court or the auditor has been influenced by such testimony. In the present case, we have no doubt the learned judge below attached very considerable weight to the evidence furnished by the books of L. C. Paine & Co. Indeed, he could hardly have reached the conclusions he did without relying upon the books to some extent. We are of opinion that they were competent and that the conclusions drawn therefrom are fully justified by the facts. The entries were made by James S. Roberts, against whose estate this claim is made. He had at that time the sole charge of the business, and his own entries show that when he loft the employ of Paine & Co., in an abrupt manner, on August 18,1886, he took with him the sum of §1,066.67 of the money of L. C. Paine & Co. to which he had no right, to state it in the mildest form. It is only proper that his estate should be compelled to restore the money thus taken.

The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

The assignments of error which allege that the court erred in receiving the books of L. C. Paine & Co. in evidence, are of little importance. The mere admission of incompetent evidence by the Orphans’ Court, or an auditor, is not of itself sufficient to justify a reversal. It must appear that the court or the auditor has been influenced by such testimony. In the present case, we have no doubt the learned judge below attached very considerable weight to the evidence furnished by the books of L. C. Paine & Co. Indeed, he could hardly have reached the conclusions he did without relying upon the books to some extent. We are of opinion that they were competent and that the conclusions drawn therefrom are fully justified by the facts. The entries were made by James S. Roberts, against whose estate this claim is made. He had at that time the sole charge of the business, and his own entries show that when he loft the employ of Paine & Co., in an abrupt manner, on August 18,1886, he took with him the sum of §1,066.67 of the money of L. C. Paine & Co. to which he had no right, to state it in the mildest form. It is only proper that his estate should be compelled to restore the money thus taken.

The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A. 538, 126 Pa. 102, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-roberts-pa-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack