Commonwealth v. Taylor

Citations

• 65 Pa. Super. 113
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 29

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Malicious mischief — Quashing indictment — Delay — Evidence—Prior prosecution — Motive,</p> <p>The refusal to quash an indictment for malicious mischief is not error where the grounds alleged are, (1) that the justice refused to receive the testimony of the defendant and his witnesses at the hearing on the information; (2) that the transcript of the justice was not. returned in full; (3) that the transcript was not returned at the first term following the hearing; and (4) the record and recognizance were not certified to the court next held after the taking thereof, if it appears that the motion to quash was not presented until ten months after the hearing and finding of a true .bill, and after the defendant had secured two continuances.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for malicious mischief for tearing down a fence, evidence of the conviction of the defendant in a former prosecution for a similar offense is admissible, for the purpose of showing the defendant’s motive.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Charge—Mistahe—Duty of counsel.</p> <p>Where a trial judge in referring to the testimony of a witness misquotes it- in a material point, his attention should be called to the error at once by counsel before the jury retires.</p> <p>Criminal law — Malicious mischief ■ — Destruction of gate over right of way — Evidence.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for malicious mischief in breaking and destroying a gate over a right of way claimed by the defendant, evidence as to the defendant’s title to the right of way is inadmissible, if it appears that the gate belonged to the prosecutor and that the destruction of the gate was not essential to the use of the right of way by the defendant.</p>