Commonwealth v. Trimble

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Trimble

180 A.2d 92, 197 Pa. Super. 644, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 904

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 12, 1962

DocketAppeal, 18

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 180 A.2d 92 (Commonwealth v. Trimble) 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. Trimble, 180 A.2d 92, 197 Pa. Super. 644, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 904 (Pa. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

In this appeal from an order on appellant for the support of his family he assigns nine questions of alleged error, but only two of them were raised in the proceeding below, viz., (a) the right of his spouse to testify and (b) the sufficiency of the evidence. For the reason that they were not raised in the court below, the other seven assignments will not be considered. Sproul v. Stein, 348 Pa. 269, 35 A. 2d 61; Parke v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., 334 Pa. 417, 6 A. 2d 304; Blose v. Martens, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 122, 95 A. 2d 340.

As to the two that were raised, the first has no merit since one spouse may testify against the other in proceedings of this nature, Act of May 11, 1911, P. L. 269, §1, 19 P.S. 683; and the second is adequately covered by the opinion of the court below.

Order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Monroe of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Bucks County as reported in 26 Pa. D. & C. 2d 561.

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

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

In this appeal from an order on appellant for the support of his family he assigns nine questions of alleged error, but only two of them were raised in the proceeding below, viz., (a) the right of his spouse to testify and (b) the sufficiency of the evidence. For the reason that they were not raised in the court below, the other seven assignments will not be considered. Sproul v. Stein, 348 Pa. 269, 35 A. 2d 61; Parke v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., 334 Pa. 417, 6 A. 2d 304; Blose v. Martens, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 122, 95 A. 2d 340.

As to the two that were raised, the first has no merit since one spouse may testify against the other in proceedings of this nature, Act of May 11, 1911, P. L. 269, §1, 19 P.S. 683; and the second is adequately covered by the opinion of the court below.

Order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Monroe of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Bucks County as reported in 26 Pa. D. & C. 2d 561.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.2d 92, 197 Pa. Super. 644, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-trimble-pasuperct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack