eighth assignment error in Pennsylvania

1947In Commonwealth v. Delfino, 10 259 Pa. 272 , 102 A. *411 949, the eighth assignment of error was based on the following excerpt from the charge of the trial judge: “If you find from the weight of the testimony, from the preponderance of the evidence, that he [the defendant] was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing, you must find a verdict of not guilty.” In dismissing all the assignments of error in this case and in sustaining the conviction, with the death penalty, this court, in an unanimous opinion said at page 279, after quoting the above excerpt: “This was a correct st

1947In Commonwealth v. Delfino, 10 259 Pa. 272 , 102 A. *411 949, the eighth assignment of error was based on the following excerpt from the charge of the trial judge: “If you find from the weight of the testimony, from the preponderance of the evidence, that he [the defendant] was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing, you must find a verdict of not guilty.” In dismissing all the assignments of error in this case and in sustaining the conviction, with the death penalty, this court, in an unanimous opinion said at page 279, after quoting the above excerpt: “This was a correct st

1947In Commonwealth v. Delfino, 10 259 Pa. 272 , 102 A. *411 949, the eighth assignment of error was based on the following excerpt from the charge of the trial judge: “If you find from the weight of the testimony, from the preponderance of the evidence, that he [the defendant] was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing, you must find a verdict of not guilty.” In dismissing all the assignments of error in this case and in sustaining the conviction, with the death penalty, this court, in an unanimous opinion said at page 279, after quoting the above excerpt: “This was a correct st

1947The practice of a judge entering into the trial of a case as an advocate is emphatically disapproved’: Com. v. Myma, 278 Pa. 505, 508 , 123 A. 486 .” , The defendants’ eighth assignment of error complains of the trial judge’s charge to the jury and the eleventh assignment of the refusal of defendants’ third point for instructions.

1947The practice of a judge entering into the trial of a case as an advocate is emphatically disapproved’: Com. v. Myma, 278 Pa. 505, 508 , 123 A. 486 .” , The defendants’ eighth assignment of error complains of the trial judge’s charge to the jury and the eleventh assignment of the refusal of defendants’ third point for instructions.

1945Apparently counsel for appellant at the trial was desirous of having the trial judge charge on the basis of certain statements in Werner et ux. v. Automobile Finance Co., 347 Pa. 217, 220 , 31 A. 2d 898 , which involved the granting of a new trial because of an excessive verdict.

1945Apparently counsel for appellant at the trial was desirous of having the trial judge charge on the basis of certain statements in Werner et ux. v. Automobile Finance Co., 347 Pa. 217, 220 , 31 A. 2d 898 , which involved the granting of a new trial because of an excessive verdict.

1925While it Avould have been better for the district attorney not to have made the remark, we cannot conceive that his statement, in the light of the instructions of the court, prejudiced the case of the defendants; it was not, therefore, an abuse of the trial court’s discretion (Com. v. Ezell, 212 Pa. 293, 296 ) to refuse the request for withdrawal of a juror.

1901Inasmuch, however, as the answer is in the exact language used in McClafferty v. Philp, 151 Pa. 86 , and in Ruffner v. Hooks, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 278 , the court was clearly justified in following the language used rather than that of the point presented by the defendant.

1901Inasmuch, however, as the answer is in the exact language used in McClafferty v. Philp, 151 Pa. 86 , and in Ruffner v. Hooks, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 278 , the court was clearly justified in following the language used rather than that of the point presented by the defendant.

1900In receiving this letter, the court said: • “ The letter is only evidence to explain why the judgment stands unreversed and unappealed from; that is all,” and counsel for appellees having stated: “ That is all that is claimed for it,” the court replied: “ It is not evidence for any other purpose.” The ob jection was, that it contained declarations of the plaintiffs in their own favor, but, as was said in Crossgrove v. Hemmelrich, 54 Pa. 203 ; “ Suppose it did, it was made to the faces of the defendants, and not behind their backs, and they might have denied the truth of any declaration in it,

1891The learned court below, in the general charge to the jury on the subject of contributory negligence of the plaintiff, said: “It is a principle of law that, although the defendant in an action of this kind may have been guilty of negligence, yet if the plaintiff himself was guilty of any negligence which materially contributed to the happening of the injury, then he cannot recover, no matter how negligent the defendant may have been.” This is in direct conflict with at least two of our recent cases: Monongahela City v. Fischer, 111 Pa. 9 ; Oil City Supply Co. v. Boundy, 122 Pa. 449 .

1891The learned court below, in the general charge to the jury on the subject of contributory negligence of the plaintiff, said: “It is a principle of law that, although the defendant in an action of this kind may have been guilty of negligence, yet if the plaintiff himself was guilty of any negligence which materially contributed to the happening of the injury, then he cannot recover, no matter how negligent the defendant may have been.” This is in direct conflict with at least two of our recent cases: Monongahela City v. Fischer, 111 Pa. 9 ; Oil City Supply Co. v. Boundy, 122 Pa. 449 .