Case ID: pa-super_99/html/0352-01.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. Amelia Fischel, Appellant.
    
      Argued September 29, 1930.
    Before Keller, Gawthrop, Cunningham and Baldrige, JJ.
    
      Orrin E. Boyle, for appellant.
    
      Russell C. Mauch, District Attorney, and with him William G. Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
    October 2, 1930:
   Per Curiam,

All of the judges who heard this case are of opinion that the evidence in the court below was sufficient to sustain a finding that the appellant was guilty of disorderly conduct within the provisions of the Act of May 2, 1901, P. L. 132. But the trial judge inadvertently did not enter a distinct and unequivocal judgment that she was guilty. Instead, he dismissed the appeal and sustained the decision of tbe magistrate. TMs was not sufficient: Com. v. Congdon, 74 Pa. Superior Ct. 286. The trial in the quarter sessions was de novo and the judge should have found the defendant guilty or not guilty; and if guilty should have imposed such sentence as he deemed proper within the limitation of the statute: Com. v. Benson, 94 Pa. Superior Ct. 10, 14.

The judgment is reversed and the record is remitted to the court below with directions to reinstate the appeal and enter such finding and judgment as the law and evidence require.