Commonwealth v. Tilly
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 18, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Luzerne Co., Jan. T.,1906, No. 68, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. John W. Tilly et al. Indictment for conspiracy.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 18, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Luzerne Co., Jan. T.,1906, No. 68, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. John W. Tilly et al. Indictment for conspiracy. At the trial John Higgins, one of the defendants, was asked under objection and exception whether he did not return to the township $120 of the $200 which he had received in 1904. [2] The court refused to charge that there could be no conviction of Daniel Finnegan or James Devenney. [8] Verdict of guilty against all of the defendants, upon which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendants…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The first assignment of error raises the same questions considered in Commonwealth v. Hughes, post, p. 90, in which an opinion was this day filed. We held that the court properly overruled the motion to quash the indictment, and for the reasons there given the first assignment of error is overruled.
The witness, Higgins, was one of the defendants, and was called to testify in his own behalf. Pie was indicted for conspiring with the other defendants to cheat and defraud the school district of Hanover township. One of the charges was that he fraudulently presented and…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RosenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Commonwealth v. DeutschSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Commonwealth v. ClaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Commonwealth v. KelsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Commonwealth v. Weiner ZvonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.