Commonwealth v. Pearl
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 16, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Carbon Co., Oct. T., 1904, No. 33, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Commonwealth v. Louise Pearl. Indictment for fornication and bastardy. Before Heydt, P. J. At the trial the following offer was made : Dr. Lacier recalled (page 22). Defense proposes showing by the doctor that the defendant was delirious during his illness, indicating his serious condition. Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 16, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Carbon Co., Oct. T., 1904, No. 33, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Commonwealth v. Louise Pearl. Indictment for fornication and bastardy. Before Heydt, P. J. At the trial the following offer was made : Dr. Lacier recalled (page 22). Defense proposes showing by the doctor that the defendant was delirious during his illness, indicating his serious condition. Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant. Objection sustained. Exception for defendant. [1] Defense offers in evidence an affidavit taken by Mary Horn-yak, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bx
Pobter, J.,
The defendant was charged with fornication and bastardy. The prosecutrix testified that the offense was committed in the cellar of the house in which she lived, in the latter part of November or first of December, 1903. Defendant had denied under oath at the trial that he had at any time been guilty of the offense. Dr. Lacier was called as a witness and testified that he was a practicing physician and had attended the defendant who had suffered an attack of pleuro-pneumonia, in November and December, 1903, and that at the time to which the testimony of the prosecutrix…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jermyn v. McClureSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PearlSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Commonwealth v. ShockerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972