Commonwealth v. George

13 Pa. Super. 542, 1900 Pa. Super. LEXIS 196
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 24, 1900·No. Appeal, No. 84·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The first assignment of error cannot be sustained. The court is not bound to entertain a motion to direct a verdict of acquittal until the conclusion of all the testimony. The second assignment raises the question as to the sufficiency of the testimony to warrant a conviction. After a careful consideration of the evidence we are not convinced that the court committed error in submitting the question to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed and the record is remitted to the court below .to the end that the sentence be fully carried into -effect.

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

Commonwealth v. George, 13 Pa. Super. 542, 1900 Pa. Super. LEXIS 196 (Pa. Ct. App. 1900).

13 Pa. Super. 542 (Commonwealth v. George) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Heller
64 A.2d 460 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)
Commonwealth v. Kline
9 Pa. D. & C. 448 (Berks County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1926)
Commonwealth v. Sonis Sonis
81 Pa. Super. 205 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)