Commonwealth v. Ault

Citations

• 10 Pa. Super. 651
• 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 337

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Province of court in defining effect.</p> <p>Where evidence is before the jury for all purposes it is not error for the court to instruct the jury as to the effect of all the facts which they may find to be established by the evidence.</p> <p>Criminal law — Receiving stolen goods — Charge of court.</p> <p>It is proper for the court to instruct the jury on the general effect of drunkenness to excuse crime, where it is urged only as an element in determining whether the prisoner had knowledge that goods in his possession were really stolen.</p> <p>Criminal laio — Indictment—Receiving stolen goods — Pleading.</p> <p>When the first count of an indictment properly charges the larceny of certain specific chattels, alleging the value and ownership thereof, and the second count charges the felonious receiving of “ the said” chattels, enumerating the same, the words “the said” refer to the first count, and the allegations as to ownership and value set forth in that count are to be read into the second count. Every count should appear, upon the face of it, to charge the defendant with a distinct offense, yet one count may refer to matter in any other count, so as to avoid unnecessary repetitions, and, though the count referred to should, in some other respects, be defective or be rejected by the grand jury, that circumstance will not vitiate the residue.</p> <p>One offense may be committed to the injury of two or more persons, and where several chattels, the property of different owners, are stolen, or feloniously received, at the same time and place, the whole may be considered as one taking and embraced in one count of the indictment.</p> <p>The want of a similiter to join the issue, in the plea of not guilty, was amended in the court below, and the motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled.</p>