Commonwealth v. Zaleski

Lackawanna County Court of Quarter Sessions

Commonwealth v. Zaleski

6 Pa. D. & C. 500, 1924 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 327

CourtLackawanna County Court of Quarter Sessions

DecidedDecember 29, 1924

DocketNo. 669

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Pa. D. & C. 500 (Commonwealth v. Zaleski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Lackawanna County Court of Quarter Sessions primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Zaleski, 6 Pa. D. & C. 500, 1924 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 327 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Edwards, P. J.,

In the indictment it is charged that the defendant “maliciously and mischievously did break a door upon an automobile, and did otherwise damage and injure said automobile, the amount of said damage being thirty dollars.” Defendant’s counsel claims that such a charge is a mere trespass and is not malicious mischief, either under any statute or at common law. There is no statute in Pennsylvania that will sustain this indictment. Is the charge set forth indictable under the common law? Although the essence of the crime of malicious mischief is the injury to property, it must be marked by some peculiar features to convert it from a trespass into a crime. It must evince a degree of moral turpitude dangerous to society; or must indicate a violation of some duty owing to the public; or must be done secretly or at night; or wantonly, such as cruelty to a domestic animal; or accompanied by a disturbance of the public peace. To say that a person broke a door of an automobile, causing damage amounting to $30, is to state a mere act of trespass. A similar case is that of Com. v. Casperson, 14 W. N. C. 106, where the indictment charged that the defendant “maliciously did break and destroy a certain chair, then and there the property of B.” The indictment was quashed.

Now, Dec. 29, 1924, motion granted and indictment quashed.

From William A. Wilcox, Scranton, Pa.

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

Edwards, P. J.,

In the indictment it is charged that the defendant “maliciously and mischievously did break a door upon an automobile, and did otherwise damage and injure said automobile, the amount of said damage being thirty dollars.” Defendant’s counsel claims that such a charge is a mere trespass and is not malicious mischief, either under any statute or at common law. There is no statute in Pennsylvania that will sustain this indictment. Is the charge set forth indictable under the common law? Although the essence of the crime of malicious mischief is the injury to property, it must be marked by some peculiar features to convert it from a trespass into a crime. It must evince a degree of moral turpitude dangerous to society; or must indicate a violation of some duty owing to the public; or must be done secretly or at night; or wantonly, such as cruelty to a domestic animal; or accompanied by a disturbance of the public peace. To say that a person broke a door of an automobile, causing damage amounting to $30, is to state a mere act of trespass. A similar case is that of Com. v. Casperson, 14 W. N. C. 106, where the indictment charged that the defendant “maliciously did break and destroy a certain chair, then and there the property of B.” The indictment was quashed.

Now, Dec. 29, 1924, motion granted and indictment quashed.

From William A. Wilcox, Scranton, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Pa. D. & C. 500, 1924 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-zaleski-paqtrsesslackaw-1924.