Auslander v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.

39 A.2d 595, 350 Pa. 473, 1944 Pa. LEXIS 588

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 29, 1944
• Docket: Appeal, 226
• Status: Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order granting a new trial. The trial judge had admitted a certified transcript of the proceedings before an alderman, offered in evidence by defendant. The learned court below en banc says: “We believe this to have been substantial and prejudicial error such as warrants a new trial, and for that reason alone a new trial will be granted: Magee v. Scott, 32 Pa. 539-540; Katterman v. Stitzer, 7 Watts 189-192; Wol verton v. Com., for use, 7 S. & R. 273-4; Miller v. Brink, 14 D. & C. 292.”

We agree that the admission of the transcript was prejudicial error. There was, therefore, no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial. We have uniformly held that under such circumstances we will not interfere with the action of the court below: Kerr v. Hofer, 341 Pa. 47, 17 A. 2d 886; Weinfeld v. Funk, 342 Pa. 160, 20 A. 2d 206; Schornig v. Speer, 343 Pa. 649, 24 A. 2d 12.

Order affirmed.