Commonwealth v. Swartz

Citations

• 65 Pa. Super. 159
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 35

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Handwriting—Expert testimony — Criminal law.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for sending a threatening letter in violation of the Act of May 19, 1913, P. L. 222, where it appears that the letter in question was printed with a pen, a witness, who has duly qualified as an expert under the Act of May 15, 1895, P. L. 69, may compare the letter in question with proven writings of the defendant in script, and express an -opinion as to their- points of resemblance. In such a case it is for the jury to judge as to the authorship of the disputed writing.</p> <p>In such a case where the letter in question contained a drawing of a black hand, it is not error for the trial judge to refer to so-called “black hand” methods employed by certain person, especially in larger cities, to extort money by threatening letters.</p> <p>A sentence of imprisonment for the minimum period of ten years and maximum period of fifteen years is not unduly severe where the prisoner has been convicted of sending a threatening letter containing a drawing of a black hand, and demanding from the prosecutor a payment of nioney under a threat to burn his barn if he did not pay the money demanded.</p> <p>Trial — Criminal law — ■Remarks of District Attorney.</p> <p>The appellate court will not reverse a conviction in a criminal ease because of alleged improper remarks of the District Attorney in his speech to the jury, where the words complained of do not appear on the record.</p> <p>Criminal law — Practice, Q. S. — New trial — After discovered evidence.</p> <p>The appellate court will not reverse a conviction in a criminal case because the trial court refused a new trial where the defendant alleged after discovered evidence, and the judge in refusing the application states that there was no allegation that the evidence had not been available at the time of the trial. Such matter is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.</p>