Case ID: pa-super_89/html/0277-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth v. Dubow, Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Division of opinion l)y judges of appellate court.
    
    Where on an appeal, the judges of the appellate court are equally divided in opinion, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.
    Argued November 16, 1926.
    Appeal No. 148, October T., 1926, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Delaware County, September Sessions, 1925, No. 154, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Du-bow.
    December 15, 1926:
    Before, Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Cunningham, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Indictment for manufacturing, selling, furnishing, transporting, and possessing intoxicating liquor. Before, Froneeield, J.
    The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
    Verdict of guilty upon which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned, among others, was the judgment of the court.
    
      JohnE. McDonough, for appellant.
    
      William Taylor, District Attorney, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The judges who heard the argument of this appeal being equally divided in opinion the assignments of error must be dismissed.

The judgment is affirmed and the record remitted to the court below; 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 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.