Commonwealth v. Hartung Et Ux.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Hirt, J.,
Defendants, husband and wife, were found guilty in a general verdict on six counts of a single indictment. They were charged with keeping a disorderly house, a bawdy house, and a building for the purpose of prostitution and assignation. All of the charges were related and depended for their proof on the same acts of the defendants. We agree that the evidence does not support a conviction on any count except that of keeping a disorderly house and we will consider that charge alone. The sentences in this case were within the statutory penalty for that offense. If, therefore,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ClarkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Commonwealth of Penna. v. DegrangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Canole v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Kerr v. ClementsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Bridgeford v. Groh Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Harris v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1974
- Commonwealth v. McSorleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Commonwealth v. WesleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Commonwealth v. GreerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.