Mitsios v. Morios

Citations

• 76 Pa. Super. 590
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 194

Syllabus

<p>Trespass — Talcing possession of premises belonging io another— Case for jury.</p> <p>In an action of trespass, resulting from the unlawful taking possession of the plaintiff’s premises in his absence and the consequent loss of profits, the ease is for the jury, where the defendant, without authority, took the keys of the plaintiff’s restaurant from the plaintiff’s agent, locked the doors and closed the same for two days. In such case, the defendant committed a trespass and the court should have submitted the case to the jury with instructions to that effect.</p> <p>Trials — Depositions of witnesses — Admissibility.</p> <p>The depositions of a witness about to leave the jurisdiction are admissible, where there is sufficient evidence to establish the fact that the witness was about to leave the jurisdiction at the time the depositions were taken and that, although since the taking of the first depositions he had been within the jurisdiction of the court at various times, he was not there at the time of the trial.</p> <p>Whether the evidence supports the conclusions that depositions should become admissible is a question of law, to be determined by the trial judge. Where, however, the only evidence supporting the exclusion of the depositions is the statement by opposing counsel that he saw the witness in the county a week before the time of trial, there is not sufficient testimony to sustain the conclusion of the court that the depositions were inadmissible, and their exclusion constituted reversible error.</p>