Commonwealth v. Beauman

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 336
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 110

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Conspiracy to defraud — Evidence—Sufficiency.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for conspiracy to defraud, evidence that the defendants cooperated in an elaborate scheme to gain the confidence of a third person, and to lure him to their hotel room,. in which the police found a machine especially adapted to simulate the manufacture of paper money, with a quantity of new money and blank paper, is sufficient to support a conviction on an indictment charging conspiracy to defraud.</p> <p>Criminal law — Evidence—Baggage found in defendants room— Money-malcing machine — Expert testimony.</p> <p>It is not error in the trial upon an indictment charging conspiracy to defraud to admit as evidence traveling bags found in the hotel rooms occupied by the defendants, where one contained a, machine purporting to be used to make counterfeit money.</p> <p>A machine or device, of which the jury could have no knowledge, by a mere inspection, may properly be explained by a detective having knowledge of such machines where the dress suit case, containing the machine, is found in the possession of defendants charged with conspiracy to defraud.</p> <p>Criminal law — Charge of the court — Comment upon evidence— 'Undue emphasis — Length of comment.</p> <p>There is no rule which requires the court to measure its words so as to give the same length to the remarks applying to one side as to the other. An assignment of error, based upon the difference in the length of comment upon the evidence of the Commonwealth, and that of the defendants, is without merit where both sides were presented, and the defendants were given every chance that they were entitled to under the law.</p>