Commonwealth v. McCoy

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. McCoy

81 Pa. Super. 191, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 43

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 12, 1923

DocketAppeal, 104

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 81 Pa. Super. 191 (Commonwealth v. McCoy) 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. McCoy, 81 Pa. Super. 191, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 43 (Pa. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

We find no irregularity in the proceedings which resulted in the order from which the defendant appeals. *192 There was an information by the wife, under oath, made before a justice of the peace, alleging that the defendant, her husband, separated himself from her, without reasonable cause, and had since willfully neglected to maintain her. The defendant, after a hearing, before the justice, gave bail to answer the charge at the next court of quarter sessions. The information and transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate having been duly returned to court a hearing was there had, the parties submitting such testimony as they saw fit to produce, and upon consideration thereof the court made an order for the support and maintenance of the wife, in an amount authorized by the statute. The information contained all the averments necessary to support a proceeding under the Act of April 13, 1867, P. L. 78, and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions of that statute. The Act of 1867 was not repealed nor superseded by the Act of March 13, 1903, P. L. 26, which authorized the punishment of desertion or nonsupport of wife or children as a misdemeanor: Com. v. Mills, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 549; Com. v. Nagle, 31 Pa. Superior Ct. 175; Com. v. Kenney, 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 418.

The evidence presented in the court below was conflicting and from that conflicting testimony it became the duty of the court below to determine the facts and enter such order as the truth required. The court found that the defendant had neglected to support his wife and made an order requiring him to contribute to her maintenance. We cannot say that that order was not supported by competent evidence.

The judgment is affirmed and it is ordered that the appellant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.

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

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

We find no irregularity in the proceedings which resulted in the order from which the defendant appeals. *192 There was an information by the wife, under oath, made before a justice of the peace, alleging that the defendant, her husband, separated himself from her, without reasonable cause, and had since willfully neglected to maintain her. The defendant, after a hearing, before the justice, gave bail to answer the charge at the next court of quarter sessions. The information and transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate having been duly returned to court a hearing was there had, the parties submitting such testimony as they saw fit to produce, and upon consideration thereof the court made an order for the support and maintenance of the wife, in an amount authorized by the statute. The information contained all the averments necessary to support a proceeding under the Act of April 13, 1867, P. L. 78, and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions of that statute. The Act of 1867 was not repealed nor superseded by the Act of March 13, 1903, P. L. 26, which authorized the punishment of desertion or nonsupport of wife or children as a misdemeanor: Com. v. Mills, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 549; Com. v. Nagle, 31 Pa. Superior Ct. 175; Com. v. Kenney, 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 418.

The evidence presented in the court below was conflicting and from that conflicting testimony it became the duty of the court below to determine the facts and enter such order as the truth required. The court found that the defendant had neglected to support his wife and made an order requiring him to contribute to her maintenance. We cannot say that that order was not supported by competent evidence.

The judgment is affirmed and it is ordered that the appellant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 Pa. Super. 191, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mccoy-pasuperct-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack