Commonwealth v. One 1956 Oldsmobile Sedan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. One 1956 Oldsmobile Sedan

198 A.2d 414, 202 Pa. Super. 571, 1964 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1008

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 17, 1964

DocketAppeals, No. 294

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 A.2d 414 (Commonwealth v. One 1956 Oldsmobile Sedan) 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. One 1956 Oldsmobile Sedan, 198 A.2d 414, 202 Pa. Super. 571, 1964 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1008 (Pa. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Woodside, J.,

These two appeals were taken by the Commonwealth from the dismissal by the lower court of petitions for forfeiture of automobiles filed pursuant to Article VI of the Liquor Code of April 12, 1951, P. L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. §6-601 et seq.

The automobiles had been used to transport liquor in violation of the Liquor Code. For a time the for-, feiture of an automobile in a case like this was mandatory, but since the amendment of April 20, 1956, P. L. [573]*573(1955) 1508, to section 602(e) of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §6-602(e), the forfeiture is subject to the discretion of the quarter sessions court. Commonwealth v. One 1957 Chevrolet Sedan, 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 179, 182, 183, 155 A. 2d 438 (1959).

In the eases before us, the lower court dismissed the petitions to forfeit after the Commonwealth presented its case and without hearing the reputed owner or intervenor.' The facts could have been more fully developed, but from the Commonwealth’s evidence concerning the nature of the violation, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in refusing to forfeit the vehicles. Commonwealth v. One 1959 Chevrolet Impala Coupe (Thomas), 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 145, 149, 150, 191 A. 2d 717 (1963). All the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was heard, so it has no standing to complain that the reputed owner and intervenor were not heard. If they had been heard and their evidence had supported their pleadings, the court would have had additional reasons to dismiss the Commonwealth’s petitions.

Orders affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Woodside, J.,

These two appeals were taken by the Commonwealth from the dismissal by the lower court of petitions for forfeiture of automobiles filed pursuant to Article VI of the Liquor Code of April 12, 1951, P. L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. §6-601 et seq.

The automobiles had been used to transport liquor in violation of the Liquor Code. For a time the for-, feiture of an automobile in a case like this was mandatory, but since the amendment of April 20, 1956, P. L. [573]*573(1955) 1508, to section 602(e) of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §6-602(e), the forfeiture is subject to the discretion of the quarter sessions court. Commonwealth v. One 1957 Chevrolet Sedan, 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 179, 182, 183, 155 A. 2d 438 (1959).

In the eases before us, the lower court dismissed the petitions to forfeit after the Commonwealth presented its case and without hearing the reputed owner or intervenor.' The facts could have been more fully developed, but from the Commonwealth’s evidence concerning the nature of the violation, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in refusing to forfeit the vehicles. Commonwealth v. One 1959 Chevrolet Impala Coupe (Thomas), 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 145, 149, 150, 191 A. 2d 717 (1963). All the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was heard, so it has no standing to complain that the reputed owner and intervenor were not heard. If they had been heard and their evidence had supported their pleadings, the court would have had additional reasons to dismiss the Commonwealth’s petitions.

Orders affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.2d 414, 202 Pa. Super. 571, 1964 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-one-1956-oldsmobile-sedan-pasuperct-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack