Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Smith

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 9, 1929No. Appeals 210, 211, 212 and 213PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

These appellants, together with Max Moses and Tobias Gelles, were jointly indicted for (1) violating the liquor laws of the Commonwealth (five counts) and (2) conspiracy to transport intoxicating liquor. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence, and after the Commonwealth’s case had closed, these appellants, Smith and Beech, separately demurred to the evidence. The Commonwealth did not expressly join in the demurrer, nor refuse to do so, as it might have done and insisted on a jury trial, (Com. v. Parr, 5 W. & S. 345, 346) but tacitly acquiesced in the demurrer,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ErnestoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  2. Heine v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
  3. Hutchison & Batchelder v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
  4. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  5. Commonwealth v. DeutschSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MarinoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Commonwealth v. HellerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Commonwealth of Pa. v. KolskySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. Commonwealth v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. United States v. TatcherCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942

11 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