Durning v. Hastings
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 62, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, Dec. T., 1895, No., 294, on verdict.fpr plaintiff. Trespass for crim. con. Before Stowe, P. J. The facts appear by the charge of the court which was as follows: [The first question for you to determine is, whether or not you believe the plaintiff, and the woman, who is alleged to be his wife, were actually married.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 62, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, Dec. T., 1895, No., 294, on verdict.fpr plaintiff. Trespass for crim. con. Before Stowe, P. J. The facts appear by the charge of the court which was as follows: [The first question for you to determine is, whether or not you believe the plaintiff, and the woman, who is alleged to be his wife, were actually married. I presume, upon that subject, you have very little, if any, doubt that the Reverend Mr. Lea did. marry á woman and a man with the same names, the names borne by the plaintiff and the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This record contains nothing that would justify us in sustaining either of the specifications of error. The case was ably and correctly tried. It was clearly for the jury on the questions of fact presented by the evidence, and was submitted to them with full and adequate instructions, of which the defendant has no just reason to complain.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Fadgen v. LenknerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Joseph v. NaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Commonwealth v. BockesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Commonwealth v. TucciSchuylkill County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1929
- Fadgen v. LenknerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.