Commonwealth v. Jeffery

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Jeffery

79 Pa. Super. 218, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 220

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 3, 1922

DocketAppeal, No. 187

StatusPublished

This text of 79 Pa. Super. 218 (Commonwealth v. Jeffery) 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. Jeffery, 79 Pa. Super. 218, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 220 (Pa. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

The defendant was indicted under the Act of March 31, 1861, P. L. 408, for libel. A plea of not guilty was entered and after the case was submitted to a jury, a verdict of guilty was rendered and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $200. While the libel charged is somewhat out of the ordinary, the rules of law applicable to the case have been clearly defined in many cases. Every debatable question of fact was fairly submitted to and considered by the jury, and every proposition of law was rightly decided by the court, after full argument.

The charge of the court, which will be printed with the report of this case, was supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Conroy v. Pittsburgh Times, 139 Pa. 334; Mulderig v. Wilkes-Barre Times, 215 Pa. 470; Com. v. Swallow, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 539; Com. v. Storey, 49 Pa. Superior Ct. 283; Com. v. Graffius, 67 Pa. Superior Ct. 281; Montgomery v. New Era Printing Co., 229 Pa. 165, and is nowhere in conflict with Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Pa. 404. No good purpose would be served in supplementing the charge of the court with further argument.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam,

The defendant was indicted under the Act of March 31, 1861, P. L. 408, for libel. A plea of not guilty was entered and after the case was submitted to a jury, a verdict of guilty was rendered and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $200. While the libel charged is somewhat out of the ordinary, the rules of law applicable to the case have been clearly defined in many cases. Every debatable question of fact was fairly submitted to and considered by the jury, and every proposition of law was rightly decided by the court, after full argument.

The charge of the court, which will be printed with the report of this case, was supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Conroy v. Pittsburgh Times, 139 Pa. 334; Mulderig v. Wilkes-Barre Times, 215 Pa. 470; Com. v. Swallow, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 539; Com. v. Storey, 49 Pa. Superior Ct. 283; Com. v. Graffius, 67 Pa. Superior Ct. 281; Montgomery v. New Era Printing Co., 229 Pa. 165, and is nowhere in conflict with Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Pa. 404. No good purpose would be served in supplementing the charge of the court with further argument.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 Pa. Super. 218, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-jeffery-pasuperct-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack