Commonwealth v. Berryman

Citations

• 72 Pa. Super. 479
• 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 351

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional law — Act of June 12,1918, P. L. 1¡81 — Defrauding innkeeper — Definition of proof.</p> <p>It is entirely proper for the legislature to declare that proof, i. e., evidence, of certain things, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud. Such a provision in the act of assembly is not unconstitutional or in violation of Article III, Section 7, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania providing that no bill shall be passed changing the rules of evidence in any judicial proceeding or inquiry before courts. Where the statute contains the provision that certain acts therein specified shall be prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent, the burden of proving the defendant guilty still remains on the Commonwealth, and neither the rules of evidence nor the regulation of the practice of the courts is changed.</p> <p>Criminal law — Defrauding innkeeper — Act of June 12, 1918, P. L. Jt-81 — Evidence—Charge of court.</p> <p>While the refusal on demand to pay for the accommodations rendered by an innkeeper to a guest is prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent, the Commonwealth must establish the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt as in all other criminal cases. Evidence of the acts referred to in Section 9 of the Act of June 12, 1913, P. L. 481, are sufficient to take the case to the jury on the question of fraudulent intent, but they may be open to explanation, and because such acts are testified to or proven on the trial does not, perforce, render the defendant guilty under the act.</p> <p>Such refusal to pay was only prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent and the court should have instructed the jury that, in order to convict, they must believe from all the evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant secured the accommodation or any part of it with the purpose and inteat to defraud.</p>