Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Hall

Citations

  • 23 Pa. Super. 104
  • 1903 Pa. Super. LEXIS 22

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Quashing indictment — Exceptions—Appeals.</p> <p>An exception lies to the denial of a motion to quash an indictment.</p> <p>A prisoner’s motion to quash and an assignment of error to the refusal of the court to quash an indictment is regular and proper practice.</p> <p>Criminal law — Indictment—Duplicity—Forgery.</p> <p>In criminal pleading, as a general rule, two or more offenses, distinct and unconnected, should be charged in separate counts, and if they are charged in a single count, such count is bad for duplicity; on the other hand when two or more offenses arise from a single act or transaction, or are closely related, they may be joined in one count.</p> <p>Where a statute makes two or more distinct acts connected with the same transaction indictable, each one of which may be considered as representing a phase in the same offense, the different acts may be coupled in one count. It is not regarded as duplicity thus to join successive statutory phases of the same offense.</p> <p>An indictment charging that the prisoner did “ unlawfully, falsely and fraudulently make, utter and publish and cause to be made, uttered and published a certain written instrument .... commonly known as anote, for the payment of money,” is not bad for duplicity.</p> <p>Criminal law — Forgery—Promissory note — Charge of court.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for making, uttering and publishing a promissory note, an instruction that if the defendant brought suit on the forged note, he was uttering the note and could be convicted therefor, is erroneous, inasmuch as it ignores the question whether the defendant forged the note, or knew that it was forged. An instruction also which charges that if the jury finds that the note was forged the prisoner could be convicted, is bad, as it ignores the question as to whether the defendant had forged the note, or caused it to be forged, or had uttered or published it knowing that it was a forged note.</p> <p>Criminal law — For

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • significant contacts existed despite home state status elsewhere

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Beaver, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.