charge assigned error in Pennsylvania

1937The third assignment is “that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury on the value, use and effect of evidence of prior good character and reputation.” The particular part of the charge assigned as error is as follows: “While good character is substantive evidence, and it is to be weighed and measured and considered with the other evidence in determining whether you believe Fugmann was guilty of this offense, and so might be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, still we say to you again if the other evidence in the case convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he did perpe

1937The third assignment is “that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury on the value, use and effect of evidence of prior good character and reputation.” The particular part of the charge assigned as error is as follows: “While good character is substantive evidence, and it is to be weighed and measured and considered with the other evidence in determining whether you believe Fugmann was guilty of this offense, and so might be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, still we say to you again if the other evidence in the case convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he did perpe

1934In Kilrow v. Com., 89 Pa. 480, 487 , the Supreme Court said, speaking through Mr. Justice 'Woodwakd-: “The Commonwealth was bound to prove guilty knowledge to secure a conviction.” In Com. v. Walter, 97 Pa. Superior Ct. 244 , Judge Lrsm, speaking for this court said: “The Commonwealth had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt: 1, that the chickens were stolen; 2, that appellant received them; 3, that he received them ‘knowing the same to be stolen ......’ ” (p. 247), and “We shall not discuss the other extracts from the charge assigned for error; in effect *187 appellant contends tha

1934In Kilrow v. Com., 89 Pa. 480, 487 , the Supreme Court said, speaking through Mr. Justice 'Woodwakd-: “The Commonwealth was bound to prove guilty knowledge to secure a conviction.” In Com. v. Walter, 97 Pa. Superior Ct. 244 , Judge Lrsm, speaking for this court said: “The Commonwealth had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt: 1, that the chickens were stolen; 2, that appellant received them; 3, that he received them ‘knowing the same to be stolen ......’ ” (p. 247), and “We shall not discuss the other extracts from the charge assigned for error; in effect *187 appellant contends tha

1920The general rule undoubtedly is that probable cause does not depend on the state of the case in point of fact, but upon the honest and reasonable belief of the party prosecuting: McCarthy v. DeArmit, 99 Pa. 64 ; the test is the prosecutor’s belief of the existence of probable cause at the time, based upon reasonable grounds: Fry v. Wolf, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 468 ; Boyd v. Kerr, 216 Pa. 259 .

1920The general rule undoubtedly is that probable cause does not depend on the state of the case in point of fact, but upon the honest and reasonable belief of the party prosecuting: McCarthy v. DeArmit, 99 Pa. 64 ; the test is the prosecutor’s belief of the existence of probable cause at the time, based upon reasonable grounds: Fry v. Wolf, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 468 ; Boyd v. Kerr, 216 Pa. 259 .

1913The remaining six. assignments are all excerpts from the charge to the jury but they are not assigned as required by our rule XV in that "the part of the charge . . . . referred to must be quoted ipsissimis verbis in the specification, and the parts of the charge assigned as error shall be inclosed in brackets in the printed charge, with the number of the assignment noted.” These assignments do not comply with the above requirements of the rule and are also faulty in that they do not show that they are based on an exception, to the charge: Merritt v. Poli, 236 Pa. 170 .

1912In Cessna’s Est., 192 Pa. 14 , it was held by the Supreme Court as stated in the syllabus: “Assignments of error are an essential part of the pleadings, and as such they should be so complete in themselves as to show the judgment or decree of the Supreme Court, without reference to any other part of the record, which is remitted to the court below after the disposal of the appeal.” When part of the charge of the judge is assigned for error the part assigned must be quoted in its exact words: Walton v. Hinnau, 146 Pa. 396 '.

1912An assignment of error will not be considered which does not quote the judge’s answer to a point totidem verbis, although it contains the point: Hall v. Phillips, 164 Pa. 494 .

1912Our old rule No. 15 which is substantially the same as the Supreme Court’s on the same subject, is as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points or to findings of fact or law, the part of the charge or the points and answers or findings referred to must be quoted totidem verbis in the assignment.” The Supreme Court’s new rule upon this subject, No. 27 and our new rule, No. 15 are precisely alike and read as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points, the part of the charge or the points and answers refe

1912In Cessna’s Est., 192 Pa. 14 , it was held by the Supreme Court as stated in the syllabus: “Assignments of error are an essential part of the pleadings, and as such they should be so complete in themselves as to show the judgment or decree of the Supreme Court, without reference to any other part of the record, which is remitted to the court below after the disposal of the appeal.” When part of the charge of the judge is assigned for error the part assigned must be quoted in its exact words: Walton v. Hinnau, 146 Pa. 396 '.

1912Our old rule No. 15 which is substantially the same as the Supreme Court’s on the same subject, is as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points or to findings of fact or law, the part of the charge or the points and answers or findings referred to must be quoted totidem verbis in the assignment.” The Supreme Court’s new rule upon this subject, No. 27 and our new rule, No. 15 are precisely alike and read as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points, the part of the charge or the points and answers refe

1912Our old rule No. 15 which is substantially the same as the Supreme Court’s on the same subject, is as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points or to findings of fact or law, the part of the charge or the points and answers or findings referred to must be quoted totidem verbis in the assignment.” The Supreme Court’s new rule upon this subject, No. 27 and our new rule, No. 15 are precisely alike and read as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points, the part of the charge or the points and answers refe

1912Our old rule No. 15 which is substantially the same as the Supreme Court’s on the same subject, is as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points or to findings of fact or law, the part of the charge or the points and answers or findings referred to must be quoted totidem verbis in the assignment.” The Supreme Court’s new rule upon this subject, No. 27 and our new rule, No. 15 are precisely alike and read as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points, the part of the charge or the points and answers refe

1912Our old rule No. 15 which is substantially the same as the Supreme Court’s on the same subject, is as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points or to findings of fact or law, the part of the charge or the points and answers or findings referred to must be quoted totidem verbis in the assignment.” The Supreme Court’s new rule upon this subject, No. 27 and our new rule, No. 15 are precisely alike and read as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points, the part of the charge or the points and answers refe

1912Our old rule No. 15 which is substantially the same as the Supreme Court’s on the same subject, is as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points or to findings of fact or law, the part of the charge or the points and answers or findings referred to must be quoted totidem verbis in the assignment.” The Supreme Court’s new rule upon this subject, No. 27 and our new rule, No. 15 are precisely alike and read as follows: “When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, or to answers to points, the part of the charge or the points and answers refe

1910The jury must be convinced that the defendant had knowledge that the instrument was forged in order to warrant a conviction of fraudulent uttering: Commonwealth v. Hall, 23 Pa. Superior Ct. 104 .

1900In Irvin v. Kutroff, 152 Pa. 609 , Chief Justice Sterrett said: “It is always unsafe, as well as unfair to the trial judge, to select a single sentence from the body of his charge, sever it from the context and un dertake to construe it by itself, without regard to what he may have said in the same connection or in other portions of his charge.” 'But passing the obvious defect in the assignment, and considering the instructions as the plaintiff has seen fit to present them, there was no error.

1897In Steinbrunner v. Railway Co., 146 Pa. 504 , Chief Justice PAXSON said of a portion of the charge assigned for error: “ It may be the learned judge used this language inadvertently.