Commonwealth v. Greenplate
Lancaster County Court of Quarter Sessions
1Opinion of the Court
Landis, P. J.,
The defendants were indicted for the larceny f two slot-machines, known as vending machines. Greenplate, Miller and togentogler were convicted and Maggie Raffensburger was acquitted. Miller nd Hogentogler were sentenced and Greenplate filed reasons for a new trial. Two objections are raised by Greenplate. The first is that, as the other wo men went into Shortlidge’s place of business and obtained the machines nd then took them out to the automobile in which Greenplate was sitting, le latter cannot be convicted of the larceny.
As to this proposition, in the recent case of Com. v.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fears v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Commonwealth v. KaiserSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- State v. MaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Commonwealth v. CooperMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Bales v. StateWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1868
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. FergusonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947