History
  • No items yet
midpage
Commonwealth v. Harpster
63 Pa. Super. 74
Pa. Super. Ct.
1916
Check Treatment
Per Curiam,

It is well settled, on both reason and authority, that the pendency of an indictment is not good ground for a plea in abatement to another indictment, in the same court for the same cause. Whenever either of them — and it matters not which, — is tried and judgment pronounced thereon, such judgment will afford a good plea in bar to the other, either of autrefois convict, or autrefois acquit; *75but nothing short of conviction or acquittal will support such a plea: Commonwealth v. Ramsey, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 25.

The disputed facts were fairly and adequately presented to the jury, and the evidence warranted the verdict it returned. The rule for a new trial was properly discharged, and the judgment is affirmed; the record remitted to the court below that sentence of the court may be fully carried into effect.

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Harpster
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Apr 17, 1916
Citation: 63 Pa. Super. 74
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 32
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.