Commonwealth v. McManiman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 27, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Luzerne Co., March T., 1904, No. 359, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Patrick McManiman. Indictment for robbery.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 27, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Luzerne Co., March T., 1904, No. 359, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Patrick McManiman. Indictment for robbery. Before Wheaton, J, When Peter Bartikowskie was on the stand the following offer was made: District Attorney: We propose to prove by the witness on tbe stand that on Saturday evening, March 12, in the neighborhood of half past eight, he met Dominick Dombrosky, Steve Bradley, John Riley and Patrick McManiman near the stone bridge, between Ashley and Sugar Notch. This is offered for the purpose of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The first assignment of error relates to the charge of the court; the second and third to the admission of testimony; the fourth to the refusal of the court to permit additional reasons for a new trial to be filed after a motion for a new trial had been disposed of.
In considering the portion of the charge complained of, the language of the court should be interpreted in the light of the whole charge. Part of a charge, which, taken by itself could be considered objectionable; may not be so considered when taken in connection with other portions of the charge. “ The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. WinkelmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- De Grote v. De GroteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Shanahan v. Agricultural InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HadokSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Commonwealth v. WyodaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910