Commonwealth v. Harpster

63 Pa. Super. 74, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 102
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 17, 1916·No. Appeal, No. 32·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It is well settled, on both reason and authority, that the pendency of an indictment is not good ground for a plea in abatement to another indictment, in the same court for the same cause. Whenever either of them — and it matters not which, — is tried and judgment pronounced thereon, such judgment will afford a good plea in bar to the other, either of autrefois convict, or autrefois acquit; [75]*75but nothing short of conviction or acquittal will support such a plea: Commonwealth v. Ramsey, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 25.

The disputed facts were fairly and adequately presented to the jury, and the evidence warranted the verdict it returned. The rule for a new trial was properly discharged, and the judgment is affirmed; the record remitted to the court below that sentence of the court may be fully carried into effect.

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

Commonwealth v. Harpster, 63 Pa. Super. 74, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 102 (Pa. Ct. App. 1916).

63 Pa. Super. 74 (Commonwealth v. Harpster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Haines
24 A.2d 85 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)