Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Mack

Dauphin County Court of Quarter Sessions

Decided November 21, 1932No. 316Published

1Opinion of the Court

Wickersham, J.,

Counsel for defendants have filed 13 reasons why the indictment found by the grand jury in this case should not be quashed. We think we can consider them all by a reference to the general principles covering indictments for conspiracy.

The indictment follows substantially the language of section 128 of the Act of March 31,1860, P. L. 382,18 PS § 2451, which provides:

“If any two or more persons shall falsely and maliciously conspire, and agree to cheat and defraud any person, or body corporate, of his or their moneys, goods, chattels, or other property, or to do any other…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. RomesburgSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Seifried v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
  3. People v. RossMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Hazen v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
  5. Commonwealth v. BonnemSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API