Commonwealth v. Janower

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Janower

48 Pa. Super. 400, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 396

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 11, 1911

DocketAppeal, No. 72

StatusPublished

This text of 48 Pa. Super. 400 (Commonwealth v. Janower) 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

Commonwealth v. Janower, 48 Pa. Super. 400, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 396 (Pa. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case was brought into the quarter sessions by appeal, duly allowed by the court, from a summary conviction of the defendants for a violation of the Act of May 1, 1909, P. L. 353. The court, after regular hearing upon evidence, directed judgment for the defendants, and from that judgment the commonwealth took this appeal. The single question for determination, say the counsel for the commonwealth, is whether the fish taken by the defendants were taken unlawfully from waters of the commonwealth. But the proper determination of that question depends upon the facts established by the evidence adduced in the quarter sessions, and as the evidence is not part of the record which is brought up for [402]*402review, it is not the question upon which this appeal turns. The question is whether the court kept within the limits of its jurisdiction and proceeded with regularity-according to law. And upon that question we see no room for difference of opinion. The court had jurisdiction, the proceedings were regular and the judgment was such as the court had power to enter if the evidence warranted. The subject of our revisory jurisdiction in such cases was fully considered and discussed in Com. v. Layton, 45 Pa. Superior Ct. 582, and we will not go over the ground again. Applying the principles enunciated in that and other cases, we find nothing in this record which would warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This case was brought into the quarter sessions by appeal, duly allowed by the court, from a summary conviction of the defendants for a violation of the Act of May 1, 1909, P. L. 353. The court, after regular hearing upon evidence, directed judgment for the defendants, and from that judgment the commonwealth took this appeal. The single question for determination, say the counsel for the commonwealth, is whether the fish taken by the defendants were taken unlawfully from waters of the commonwealth. But the proper determination of that question depends upon the facts established by the evidence adduced in the quarter sessions, and as the evidence is not part of the record which is brought up for [402]*402review, it is not the question upon which this appeal turns. The question is whether the court kept within the limits of its jurisdiction and proceeded with regularity-according to law. And upon that question we see no room for difference of opinion. The court had jurisdiction, the proceedings were regular and the judgment was such as the court had power to enter if the evidence warranted. The subject of our revisory jurisdiction in such cases was fully considered and discussed in Com. v. Layton, 45 Pa. Superior Ct. 582, and we will not go over the ground again. Applying the principles enunciated in that and other cases, we find nothing in this record which would warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Pa. Super. 400, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-janower-pasuperct-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack