Commonwealth v. Stramara
Schuylkill County Court of Quarter Sessions
1Opinion of the Court
Houck, J.,
Defendant was tried on nine indictments. One of them was nol prossed. He was acquitted on four and convicted on four. He moved in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, assigning nine reasons in support of the motion. None of the reasons is specific as required by Rule of Court 211 and they might well be overruled on this ground. However, since the rules are intended solely for the purpose of governing procedure in this court and cannot be binding upon an appellate court in the consideration of an appeal : Dando v. Brobst et al., 318 Pa. 325, 330; we shall consider the questions…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dando v. BrobstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Commonwealth v. HendersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Commonwealth v. JobeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Commonwealth v. FreedSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Commonwealth v. Hefferman and BrodskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929