Beloud v. Sayre

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Beloud v. Sayre

56 Pa. Super. 215, 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 20, 1914

DocketAppeal, No. 200

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 56 Pa. Super. 215 (Beloud v. Sayre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beloud v. Sayre, 56 Pa. Super. 215, 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69 (Pa. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlad y, J.,

The assignments of error challenge the disposition made of the points for charge which were presented by the defendant — all of which were refused without reading them to the jury. “It has been repeatedly held that a judge is not bound to adopt the language of the points, but may choose his own form of expression, and if he expresses the law fully and with substantial accuracy nothing further is necessary. The judge’s charge is not made to a technical and critical audience, scanning closely every phrase capable of a construction which would be error, but is addressed to a jury of plain men of various ages, education, intelligence, and experience, and is intended to inform them as to the law, and to guide them in its application to the facts as they may find them from the evidence. Having given them one plain, full and adequate statement of the law, it need not do more.” This is the language of our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Lewis, 222 Pa. 302. Every question raised by the appellant in this case, is adequately and convincingly answered in the opinion of the trial judge (Maxwell, J.), in refusing a new trial, and to enter a judgment non obstante veredicto.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Orlad y, J.,

The assignments of error challenge the disposition made of the points for charge which were presented by the defendant — all of which were refused without reading them to the jury. “It has been repeatedly held that a judge is not bound to adopt the language of the points, but may choose his own form of expression, and if he expresses the law fully and with substantial accuracy nothing further is necessary. The judge’s charge is not made to a technical and critical audience, scanning closely every phrase capable of a construction which would be error, but is addressed to a jury of plain men of various ages, education, intelligence, and experience, and is intended to inform them as to the law, and to guide them in its application to the facts as they may find them from the evidence. Having given them one plain, full and adequate statement of the law, it need not do more.” This is the language of our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Lewis, 222 Pa. 302. Every question raised by the appellant in this case, is adequately and convincingly answered in the opinion of the trial judge (Maxwell, J.), in refusing a new trial, and to enter a judgment non obstante veredicto.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Pa. Super. 215, 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beloud-v-sayre-pasuperct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack