Cappuccio's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Cappuccio's Estate

23 Pa. D. & C. 295, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 114

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedMay 31, 1935

Docketno. 1238 of 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Pa. D. & C. 295 (Cappuccio's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cappuccio's Estate, 23 Pa. D. & C. 295, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 114 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Sinkler, J.,

The exceptions relate to the allowance of the claim of Mary Cappuccio and to the denial by the auditing judge of the petition of the accountant for a rehearing on the said claim on the ground of after-discovered evidence.

As to the first, the ground for the allowance of the claim by the learned auditing judge is based upon the [299]*299credibility of the witnesses produced in behalf of the claimant. A reading of the record in the case convinces us that he has reached the sound conclusion.

As to the second, the granting of a rehearing is largely within the discretion of the auditing judge and will not be set aside unless abuse of his discretion exists. In the present case we do not find the abuse of discretion. On the contrary even if the averment in the petition for rehearing were proven, to wit, that on the day that certain conversations were shown by the testimony to have taken place at noon in Hammonton, New Jersey, the time-clock record of decedent’s employer in Germantown shows that he reported for work at 7:33 in the morning and left at 5:38 in the evening, it is not inconsistent with his presence at the hour specified at Hammonton, having in mind the nature of his employment as shown by the testimony.

The exceptions are dismissed and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

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

Sinkler, J.,

The exceptions relate to the allowance of the claim of Mary Cappuccio and to the denial by the auditing judge of the petition of the accountant for a rehearing on the said claim on the ground of after-discovered evidence.

As to the first, the ground for the allowance of the claim by the learned auditing judge is based upon the [299]*299credibility of the witnesses produced in behalf of the claimant. A reading of the record in the case convinces us that he has reached the sound conclusion.

As to the second, the granting of a rehearing is largely within the discretion of the auditing judge and will not be set aside unless abuse of his discretion exists. In the present case we do not find the abuse of discretion. On the contrary even if the averment in the petition for rehearing were proven, to wit, that on the day that certain conversations were shown by the testimony to have taken place at noon in Hammonton, New Jersey, the time-clock record of decedent’s employer in Germantown shows that he reported for work at 7:33 in the morning and left at 5:38 in the evening, it is not inconsistent with his presence at the hour specified at Hammonton, having in mind the nature of his employment as shown by the testimony.

The exceptions are dismissed and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Pa. D. & C. 295, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cappuccios-estate-paorphctphilad-1935.