Case ID: pa_244/html/0525-01.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

Frasso v. City of Reading, Appellant.
    
      Practice, C. P. — Appeal from award of vieiuers — Application for inspection of premises — Discretion of court.
    
    On the trial of an appeal from an award of viewers, the action of the trial judge in refusing an application by the plaintiff for an inspection of the premises by the jury, made while the trial was in progress and after it had been shown that the building on the lot had been torn down, is not ground for reversal where there is nothing on the record to indicate that the discretion of the court was not wisely exercised.
    Argued March 2, 1914.
    Appeal, No. 243, Jan. Ter.m, 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., August Term, 1912, No. 8, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Boceo A. Frasso v. City of Beading.
    Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal from award of viewers. Before Endlich, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,254. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was in refusing defendant’s request to have the jury view the premises in question.
    
      Samuel E. Bertolet, with him Joseph Hill Brinton, for appellant.
    
      Joseph R. Dickinson, and Henry P. Keiser, for appellee, were not heard.
    March 23,1914:
   Per Curiam,

The issue in the Common Pleas was on an appeal from the award of viewers to determine the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the appropriation of a part of a city lot and of injury to the remainder. The only assignment of error that is based on an exception taken at the trial is to the refusal by the court of an application by the plaintiff for an inspection of the premises by the jury made while the trial was in progress and after it had been shown that the building on the lot had been torn down. This application was an appeal to the sound discretion of the court. Mintzer v. Greenough, 192 Pa. 137. There is nothing in the record that indicates that its discretion was not wisely exercised.

The judgment is affirmed.