Commonwealth v. Diori
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 240, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Wyoming Co., October Sessions, 1912, No. 28¡Hj, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Sam Diori. Indictment for selling liquor without a license. Before Terry, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict of guilty, upon which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were various instructions.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
These three defendants were severally prosecuted and convicted for selling liquor on Sunday, and by agreement of counsel they were tried together, separate appeals being taken, they have been heard together in this court. The uncontradicted evidence in the case shows that one Flickwire was a contractor of the Lackawanna Railroad, involving extensive contract work in Wyoming county. The Diori Brothers were padrones who furnished men for the contractor under a stipulated wage or price, and also conducted a commissary department to supply groceries, meat, etc., to the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HolstineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Commonwealth v. HecirrionicSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909