Schubkagel v. Dierstein

Citations

• 131 Pa. 46
• 18 A. 1059
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1081

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. A law student does not stand upon, the same plane with an attorney at law in the matter of privileged communications; and when such student is employed to conduct before an alderman, a prosecution for fornication, communications made to Mm by the prosecutrix in connection therewith are not privileged.</p> <p>2. Both the alderman and the law student are competent to testify for the defendant that a settlement of such prosecution, which they assisted in making, included a claim for breach of a contract to marry, alleged to have been entered into on the same date the fornication was charged to have been committed.</p> <p>3. When error is assigned to the refusal to arrest a judgment, the Supreme Court cannot thereunder pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; as the question whether a judgment should be arrested depends upon the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s narr, and if that be sound he is in general entitled to judgment.</p> <p>4. Though it is error to nonsuit a plaintiff who has presented a case sufficient to go to the jury, the refusal to grant a nonsuit is not reviewable by the Supreme Court; for the defendant, after giving his evidence, still has it in his power to ask the court to instruct the jury upon the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence to maintain the action.</p>