81 Pa. Super. 279 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1923
Argued March 13, 1923. The defendant was tried and convicted in the court below upon an indictment charging him with having received stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. He does not allege that there was error in any ruling of the court at the trial which resulted in his conviction. The only assignment of error complains of the refusal of the court to grant a new trial.
The real complaint of the appellant is that the jury ought not to have believed the testimony of the thief, from whom he had received the property. There is no rule of law in this State that forbids a conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice: Com. v. DeMasi,
The judgment is affirmed and it is ordered that the defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be by that court committed *281 until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.