Commonwealth v. DeCost
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 29, April T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 152, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. William B. DeCost. Indictment for perjury.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 29, April T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 152, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. William B. DeCost. Indictment for perjury. Before Evans, J. At the trial when Mary Scott Hartje was on the stand, she was asked this question: “Q. He (DeCost) testified on the trial of the case of The Commonwealth v. Hooe, that about September 5 or 6, 1903, in substance that you came to his tailoring establishment — ” Objected to. Mr. Brennen: Under the indictment, stating that it was September 5 or 6, counsel proposes to read a different…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The indictment upon which the defendant was convicted averred that upon the trial of one Clifford Hooe upon a charge *92of perjury, the defendant, DeCost, willfully, falsely and corruptly testified in substance and to the effect that Mary Scott Hartje on the fifth or sixth day of September, 1903, came to his, DeCost’s, store, and then and there met, shook hands with, and conversed with Clifford Hooe, and that he, DeCost, on a certain morning after the fifth or sixth of September, 1903, saw Mary Scott Hartje wave from a street car to Clifford Hooe.
Testimony may be assigned…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Williams v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
3Cited by9 opinions
- Commonwealth v. AnticoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Commonwealth v. HainesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Commonwealth v. BradleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Commonwealth v. BobanicSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Commonwealth v. GoreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.