Commonwealth v. Roller

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Roller

70 Pa. Super. 540, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 302

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 12, 1918

DocketAppeal, No. 258

StatusPublished

This text of 70 Pa. Super. 540 (Commonwealth v. Roller) 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. Roller, 70 Pa. Super. 540, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 302 (Pa. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Prior to the, passage of the Act of June 7, 1915, P. L. 1017, the law applicable to disorderly street walkers was, that after a summary conviction before a magistrate or justice of the peace, an appeal could be allowed to the Court of Quarter Sessions and from the judgment of that court an appeal, which was in fact but a certiorari, could be taken to the Superior Court, and upon that hearing the record of the case would be reviewed. Since the passage of the Act of 1915, the Municipal Court has exclusive jurisdiction in case of disorderly street walkers, and the appeal from its judgment is to the Superior Court.

The record in this case of the Municipal Court exhibits proceedings that are regular in all particulars. A full hearing was had and the defendant found guilty. This appeal is but a certiorari, and the testimony is not before us: Thompson v. Preston, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 154; Com. to use v. Hendley, 7 Pa. Superior Ct. 356; Com. v. Stahl 87, October Term, 1918, filed July 10, 1918.

[542]*542The appeal is dismissed, the record remitted to' the court below, and it is .ordered that the appellant appear at such time as she may be called and be by that court committed until she has complied with the sentence imposed, or any part of it that had not been performed, at the time this appeal became a supersedeas.

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

Per Curiam,

Prior to the, passage of the Act of June 7, 1915, P. L. 1017, the law applicable to disorderly street walkers was, that after a summary conviction before a magistrate or justice of the peace, an appeal could be allowed to the Court of Quarter Sessions and from the judgment of that court an appeal, which was in fact but a certiorari, could be taken to the Superior Court, and upon that hearing the record of the case would be reviewed. Since the passage of the Act of 1915, the Municipal Court has exclusive jurisdiction in case of disorderly street walkers, and the appeal from its judgment is to the Superior Court.

The record in this case of the Municipal Court exhibits proceedings that are regular in all particulars. A full hearing was had and the defendant found guilty. This appeal is but a certiorari, and the testimony is not before us: Thompson v. Preston, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 154; Com. to use v. Hendley, 7 Pa. Superior Ct. 356; Com. v. Stahl 87, October Term, 1918, filed July 10, 1918.

[542]*542The appeal is dismissed, the record remitted to' the court below, and it is .ordered that the appellant appear at such time as she may be called and be by that court committed until she has complied with the sentence imposed, or any part of it that had not been performed, at the time this appeal became a supersedeas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Pa. Super. 540, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-roller-pasuperct-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack