Commonwealth v. Weber

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Weber

63 Pa. Super. 75, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 103

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 17, 1916

DocketAppeal, No. 386

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 63 Pa. Super. 75 (Commonwealth v. Weber) 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. Weber, 63 Pa. Super. 75, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 103 (Pa. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The indictment charges the defendant with attempted subornation of perjury. A demurrer was filed in which the defendant added “saving to himself all manner and benefit of technicalities, and especially the right to plead to the indictment and a trial by his peers and the law of the land, in the event that the said demurrer should not be sustained.” The court “overruled the demurrer ; the defendant was directed to plead to the indictment.” The contingency anticipated by the defendant is now presented, and his plea to the indictment is directed by the court in answer to his prayer. The decree as entered, is interlocutory only, from which an appeal does not lie. No appeal cán be taken from a judgment or decree' which is not a final disposition of the matter in controversy. The effect of the court’s decree is that the offense is sufficiently charged'in the indictment to require a plea, and whether or not he is guilty depends solely upon the proof at the time of trial. In Commonwealth v. Gabor, 209 Pa. 201, the whole record of the trial was before the court, and the question considered was a purely legal one, while in this case it may be dependent on one of law and fact joined: Richardson v. Richardson, 193 Pa. 279; Leedom v. Philadelphia, Etc., St. Ry. Co., 217 Pa. 278.

The appeal is quashed, with a procedendo.

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

Per Curiam,

The indictment charges the defendant with attempted subornation of perjury. A demurrer was filed in which the defendant added “saving to himself all manner and benefit of technicalities, and especially the right to plead to the indictment and a trial by his peers and the law of the land, in the event that the said demurrer should not be sustained.” The court “overruled the demurrer ; the defendant was directed to plead to the indictment.” The contingency anticipated by the defendant is now presented, and his plea to the indictment is directed by the court in answer to his prayer. The decree as entered, is interlocutory only, from which an appeal does not lie. No appeal cán be taken from a judgment or decree' which is not a final disposition of the matter in controversy. The effect of the court’s decree is that the offense is sufficiently charged'in the indictment to require a plea, and whether or not he is guilty depends solely upon the proof at the time of trial. In Commonwealth v. Gabor, 209 Pa. 201, the whole record of the trial was before the court, and the question considered was a purely legal one, while in this case it may be dependent on one of law and fact joined: Richardson v. Richardson, 193 Pa. 279; Leedom v. Philadelphia, Etc., St. Ry. Co., 217 Pa. 278.

The appeal is quashed, with a procedendo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Pa. Super. 75, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-weber-pasuperct-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack