Commonwealth v. Ostrum
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 404, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Aug. T., 1917, No. 404, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Samuel B. Ostrum. Indictment for seduction under promise of marriage. Before Gorman, J. See Commonwealth v. Bemey, (2) 262 Pa. 176. Verdict of guilty upon which judgment of sentence was passed. Plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 404, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Aug. T., 1917, No. 404, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Samuel B. Ostrum. Indictment for seduction under promise of marriage. Before Gorman, J. See Commonwealth v. Bemey, (2) 262 Pa. 176. Verdict of guilty upon which judgment of sentence was passed. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned, amongst others, was in failing to properly instruct the jury with reference to the law upon the question of reasonable doubt.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The relation established by the prosecutor and the defendant subsequent to their admitted engagement to marry, was the sole question in controversy in the court below, and this was submitted in a charge that was free from reversible error. Its sufficiency on the question of reasonable doubt has been settled by the Supreme Court in Com. v. Berney, No. 181, January Term, 1918, filed July 17, 1918.
The judgment is affirmed, and it is ordered that the appellant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RestonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. RileySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934