Commonwealth v. Quinn

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Quinn

42 Pa. Super. 490, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 362

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 18, 1910

DocketAppeal, No. 8

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 Pa. Super. 490 (Commonwealth v. Quinn) 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. Quinn, 42 Pa. Super. 490, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 362 (Pa. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The indictment contained three counts, the first drawn under sec. 108 of the act of March 31,1860,382, and charging the offense commonly called larceny by bailee, and the second and third charging larceny and receiving stolen goods. Each of the counts was well drawn, they all relate to the same property and were properly joined in the indictment: Henwood v. Com., 52 Pa. 424. The form of the verdict as set forth in the appellant’s paper-book was: “First pount, larceny by bailee, guilty; second count, larceny, not guilty; third count, receiving stolen goods, not guilty.” This leaves no room for doubt or quibble as to the crime of which the jury found the defendant guilty. It was the crime charged in the first count of the indictment and it needs no argument to show that there was no repugnancy between an acquittal of the larceny charged in the second count and a conviction of the crime charged in the first count. The first assignment is overruled. The other two assignments relate to the charge of the court and are of such a nature that they cannot be considered and disposed of on the merits without having the charge and the evidence before us. As these are not printed in the appellant’s paper-book, the assignments are dismissed.

The judgment is affirmed and the record is remitted to the court of quarter sessions of Bucks county, to the end that the sentence be fully carried into effect.

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

Per Curiam,

The indictment contained three counts, the first drawn under sec. 108 of the act of March 31,1860,382, and charging the offense commonly called larceny by bailee, and the second and third charging larceny and receiving stolen goods. Each of the counts was well drawn, they all relate to the same property and were properly joined in the indictment: Henwood v. Com., 52 Pa. 424. The form of the verdict as set forth in the appellant’s paper-book was: “First pount, larceny by bailee, guilty; second count, larceny, not guilty; third count, receiving stolen goods, not guilty.” This leaves no room for doubt or quibble as to the crime of which the jury found the defendant guilty. It was the crime charged in the first count of the indictment and it needs no argument to show that there was no repugnancy between an acquittal of the larceny charged in the second count and a conviction of the crime charged in the first count. The first assignment is overruled. The other two assignments relate to the charge of the court and are of such a nature that they cannot be considered and disposed of on the merits without having the charge and the evidence before us. As these are not printed in the appellant’s paper-book, the assignments are dismissed.

The judgment is affirmed and the record is remitted to the court of quarter sessions of Bucks county, to the end that the sentence be fully carried into effect.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 Pa. Super. 490, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-quinn-pasuperct-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack