82 Pa. Super. 92 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1923
Argued October 2, 1923.
The learned trial judge quashed the indictment because the date laid as that on which the crime was committed was subsequent to the day on which the information was made. He considered this a fatal error. Our court expressed an opinion to the contrary in Com. v. Nailor (No. 2),
It has been held repeatedly that where time is not of the essence of the offense, the Commonwealth can show any time prior to the finding of the indictment and within the period of limitation, Com. v. Ryhal,
The order and judgment of the court of quarter sessions quashing the bill of indictment is reversed, the indictment is reinstated and the record remitted for further proceedings according to law.