Commonwealth v. Pendergast

Citations

• 138 Pa. 633
• 21 A. 12
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1141

Syllabus

<p>[To bo reported.]</p> <p>(а) A defendant, chai’ged with selling liquor without license, alleged as a justification, that he had a written appointment as an agent of a liquor dealer residing in another state, and as such agent sold the liquors in question in-the original packages in which they were imported into this state by his principal.</p> <p>(б) The only evidence of the agency, so alleged, was the unsupported testimony of the defendant himself. His written appointment was not produced. The principal was not called to testify, and no effort to procure his attendance was shown. There was no countervailing testimony in rebuttal:</p> <p>1. It was not error for the court to submit to the jury the bona fides of the defence set up by the defendant, and to charge that his failure to bring to the trial as a witness the man alleged to have been his principal, was . a circumstance to be considered as bearing upon the defendant’s credibility.</p>