Commonwealth v. Schollenberger
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 50, Oct. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Phila. Co., Nov. T., 1900, Nos. 296, 297 and 298, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. George Schollenberger. Before Indictments under the oleomargarine act of May 5,1899. The facts sufficiently appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was in overruling and dismissing the appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
Three separate indictments were found against the defendant charging him with violations of the Act of May 5, 1899, P. L. 241, entitled “ An act to regulate the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine and butterine and other similar products, to prevent fraud and deception by the manufacture and sale thereof as an imitation of butter,” etc. All three indictments were tried before the same jury, but separate verdicts and judgments were entered, from which a single appeal was taken. We might well quash the appeal, or compel the defendant to elect the case to be reviewed. Our omission…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. VandykeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Commonwealth v. McCannSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- McCann v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
3Cited by13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BloseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Commonwealth v. HellerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Dubois's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Commonwealth v. WalkerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Ferree v. DouglasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.